Paula Rigano: Last time I checked, the First Amendment still stood

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In case you do not recognize it, this is the First Amendment, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. People are organizing around their displeasure with our current government, many of whom I voted for. When they criticize, they are labeled as mean, divisive bullies, unknowledgeable and spreaders of misinformation. Those who tell them to stop or to be nice to our leaders seem to forget that the First Amendment gives them the right to speak their minds both for and against the government and its officials when they believe things could be done better, or dare I say, differently.

The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to express their views at public meetings, including criticizing the government. This fundamental principle was affirmed in the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, which emphasized the importance of unrestricted public debate. The court stated that discussions on public matters should be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” potentially including harsh critiques of government officials.

During public comment periods, government officials are expected to tolerate diverse viewpoints, even those they may find disagreeable or offensive. This tolerance is an essential aspect of a functioning democracy, where free speech allows for open dialogue and criticism of those in power. The right to express opinions, even if they are unpopular or critical, is a cornerstone of our First Amendment protections. This is what democracy looks like.

Paula Rigano

Northampton