The kerfuffle du jour, as you know, is the revelation that as party of its pitch to the United States Olympic Committee, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh signed a document in which he agrees that the city’s “officers, employees and representatives, shall not make, publish or communicate to any Person, or communicate in any public forum, any comments or statements (written or oral) that reflect unfavorably upon, denigrate or disparage, or are detrimental to the reputation or statute [sic] of, the IOC, the IPC, the USOC, the IOC Bid, the Bid Committee or the Olympic or Paralympic movement.” Furthermore, the agreement also imposes an affirmative obligation that the city’s “officers, employees and representatives, shall each promote the Bid Committee, the USOC, the IOC Bid, U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes and hopefuls and the Olympic and Paralympic movement in a positive manner.”
Hey, no problem, says Mayor Marty. “I believe in free speech.” And you can ignore what the agreement says – it’s “boilerplate,” and “it was in the agreement, and we had to get the agreement signed.” Walsh assures us that “if a city employee isn’t happy and on their own personal time goes to Facebook or Twitter or any other social media, that’s fine.”
The USOC also assures us that we needn’t worry our pretty little heads about the seemingly draconian speech restrictions. “That is boilerplate language that is typical of contracts between parties,” a USOC representative told the Globe.
This “boilerplate” answer is obviously unsatisfactory. Contractual language appears in contracts for a reason, and the reason is almost always that at least one of the parties wanted it in there. And the only reason a party would want language like this in a contract is to have in reserve the ability to enforce it against the other. So let’s take Walsh at his word that, as far as he’s concerned, city employees can say anything they want about the Olympics on their own time, in any forum [UPDATE: in an email to city employees, Walsh tried to clarify that that is indeed his position]. That does not mean that the other party to the agreement – the USOC – couldn’t seek to enforce the language of the agreement against Walsh and the city. Would such an action be successful? Who knows. The point, as the Globe correctly points out in an editorial today, is that the mere fact that such language is out there is “likely to have a chilling effect on the public discussion over whether to bid for the Olympics.” “Boilerplate” or not, contractual language exists to be enforced.
This language is an embarrassment, and Walsh never should have agreed to it. If he is serious about his commitment to free speech, he should forward an amended version of the agreement without the offending language to the USOC, and if they are serious as well, they will promptly execute it. Nothing else is good enough.
mimolette says
If it had been meaningless boilerplate, and the IOC hadn’t cared whether it was there or not, and Walsh objected to it, it would have been struck out of the draft before it was signed. That’s what happens when someone sends you a draft agreement and you object to something in the draft. If there’s no time to do anything else, you strike the offending language through and initial the change.
Either Walsh didn’t think to object or the IOC insisted that it had to stay and he or his team folded. And that statement about how they had to sign it to get the agreement in place suggests the latter to me, though I’m not sure the former explanation would be any better.
merrimackguy says
and this is just evidence of that. He can do whatever he wants.
hesterprynne says
Note that the city’s counsel, who apparently was unconcerned that boilerplate language might produce a chilling effect on city employees’ free speech rights, is Eugene O’Flaherty, formerly a member of the House of Representatives.
BMG’ers may remember Representative O’Flaherty from a few years ago, when the valiant tedf tried to get access to testimony that had been submitted to the Judiciary Committee at a public hearing on the subject of proposed legislation pertaining to the Uniform Foreign-Court Money Judgment Act. Representative O’Flaherty, House chairperson of the Judiciary Committee, demurred, on the very specious grounds that
Would it be impertinent to suggest a remedial First Amendment course?
SomervilleTom says
The entire concept of Boston hosting the Olympics is an embarrassment.
Contract language that suppresses basic First Amendment rights? To paraphrase the classic movie line … I’m shocked, just shocked, to discover that here.
This is par for the course of an Olympics bid. This is par for the course for those in the state who vigorously maintain that we “can’t afford” tax increases on the wealthy to repair the consequences of decades of government neglect, and simultaneously promote this misguided squandering of billions of dollars (that’s what it will cost if it ever gets any traction).
This is the same state government that was shocked to learn of underworld connections of key casino gambling players. This is the same mayor Walsh who declared that probation department criminals are his “friends” and committed no crimes.
Yes, this particular episode is egregiously wrong. We must be sure that we see and pay attention to the forest that this particular tree grows in.
Jasiu says
ST, you touched on something that I’ve been thinking for the last day or so. Rather than large public projects like the Big Dig, I think the apt comparison for the Olympics is our recent and ongoing situation with the casino industry. In both cases, we are dealing with people (casino industry and IOC) who are known shady characters and our government types promise us everything will be above-board, transparent, and honest – until it isn’t. The further we go down the road with either, the worse it will get.
merrimackguy says
Patrick says
I think the argument that this is “boilerplate” language from the USOC or IOC is probably correct, and is common in many types of business contracts. I’m sure somewhere at my firm, I’ve either signed a contract or we have a policy that I’m subject to that says I will not disparge my employer or our contracts or vendors in a public capacity if I identify myself as an employee of my firm. This is similar to court cases where employees have been let go for making disparaging remarks about their employers on social media and those have typically been upheld.
At the end of the day, if you work for the City of Boston and you want to go home and tell your friends or go online and say as a private citizen “I disagree with the Olympics/IOC/USOC for reasons A, B & C”, I don’t think they can do much to stop you. However the fine line is that you can’t go and say “I’m an employee of the City of Boston and in my official capacity as I disagree with the Olympics/IOC/USOC for reasons A, B & C.”
bob-gardner says
who have been telling us to ignore all the serious problems and cost overruns at other Olympics, because this is Boston and Boston does things differently. And the first chance they get, they sign this blatantly unconstitutional document, with the excuse that all the other Olympic bidders signed it, so Boston had to.
paulsimmons says
From the Dorchester Reporter:
My read of current Council dynamics is that all this is conditional upon what happens on the ground…
Christopher says
Union contracts state what an employee can and cannot be fired for, right? If speaking out were not collectively bargained as a legitimate reason for being terminated anyone who is terminated on that basis would have a very strong case for reinstatement it would seem.
ryepower12 says
1) I doubt every city employee has a union. I’m sure there are many who don’t.
2) That these kind of policies likely wouldn’t stand up in court or at arbitration isn’t what’s important. What is important is that city employees just got a huge, front-page notice that there could be hell to pay if they raise a red flag over any issue concerning the Olympics that they may have special knowledge about.
HR's Kevin says
How exactly would you prove you were terminated because you spoke out on the Olympics? Walsh would just claim it was for some other reason. He already has fired quite a number of people for no apparent reason at all other than to make room for his own people.
This is why it was so stupid of him to sign this. There is simply no way for him to take it back especially when he came out so stridently opposed to any kind of vote.
ryepower12 says
No one should be surprised about the city going along with the IOC’s ban on free speech for city employees — it’s just par for the Olympic course.
In fact, no one should be surprised when, months or years leading up to the games, the Department of Homeland Security suspends our constitutional rights.
Via The Guardian:
Christopher says
We DID get through the convention and marathon and live to tell about it, right? I guess I don’t take as much umbrage as you do at the rules being a little different for a couple of weeks.
TheBestDefense says
Yeah, I mean how could anybody get upset at having their Constitutional rights suspended so some rich people can have a party that the taxpayers pay the bill?
/sarcasm
Jasiu says
Seriously, did you actually mean that? As long as we all “live to tell about it” it is OK to do without the Constitution for a while?
Seriously?
David says
You think you can do without your constitutional rights, as long as it’s just for a couple of weeks?
Of course, people in other countries don’t have them at all, or have very different versions, and most of them “live to tell about it.” So it’s not as though human life is dependent on the American version. Still, it would be nice to think that, as Americans, we get the benefit of the document that is supposedly our national charter, even when it’s not convenient for Boston 2024.
Christopher says
I just think that if Boston Common turns out to be off limits to demonstrations because it’s being commandeered for Olympic purposes we can always find other ways to express our displeasure about whatever it is that has our goat at that moment. As for security, I fully expect and frankly probably want it to be a highly secured event. Yes, if you are planning on attending Olympic events, expect to be searched. If not, you’ll have plenty of notice to make arrangements to avoid the vicinity.
SomervilleTom says
Your contempt for demonstrations and protests is exceeded only by your similar contempt for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
It appears that the imposition of any sort of police state is ok with you so long as it’s for “security”.
Christopher says
Just to prove you can? If you have something to complain about you can still write a letter to the newspaper, call talk radio, sound off on BMG, or contact your legislators. The first amendment absolutism is beginning to sound like how the NRA treats the second amendment.
kirth says
Why demonstrate? Because
a) demonstrations put your message in front of a large number of people, with no corporate-media filters.
b) It is an important right granted us in the Constitution. That you, personally, do not exercise this right in this way does not mean it is unimportant or unnecessary.
I can write a letter to the newspaper. They can throw my message away without printing or even reading it.
I can call a radio talk show. The radio talk show can hang up on me, or put me on hold for the rest of eternity. Even if I do get on the air, the host can interrupt and shout me down, while belittling my position and person.
I can sound off on BMG. yay.
I can contact my representatives in the legislature and Congress. They can look me up in their records and see that my contributions to their campaign funds have not even reached four figures, then go back to soliciting the opinions of the insurance industry and the police unions.
You say “first amendment absolutism” like it’s a bad thing. it isn’t. The absolutism is what makes it worth having in the first place. A right that only applies when Christopher cares about it and agrees with the way it’s being exercised is not a right at all; it’s a privilege. Privileges can and are casually withdrawn.
HR's Kevin says
Stop posting and commenting here for two weeks. Pretend that your account was suspended.
Then come back after two weeks and tell us how you never felt that your speech was at all constrained.
Christopher says
…and express my opinion if need be. In fact, in practice this has sort of happened at Daily Kos. A while back that site stopped co-operating with my browser, so I can no longer be an active participant. Sure, it’s a bit annoying, but I absolutely do not feel like my rights have been threatened.
Christopher says
…I first became active at DK during a period of several days when I was having technical difficulties commenting on BMG.
HR's Kevin says
See you in two weeks…
ryepower12 says
1. A lot of people happen to live in the vacinity. Pray, tell, how will they arrange to avoid it?
2. It’s foolish to think the suspension of our constitutional rights will just be for the duration of the games. It will be for the entire length of construction. It will be for after the games are over, while everyone awaits the paralympics. Then it will be during the paralympics. The suspension could in various forms for years.
3. Where in the first amendment is there an asterisk that freedom of assembly exists, except when it’s inconvenient for billionaires who want to throw a big party at everyone else’s expense?
Christopher says
Seriously, did Atlanta, SLC, LA, or Lake Placid really go to the lengths you fear? If not, why would this, and if so why is it a dealbreaker now? I assume people also resided in the vicinity of those Games.
Christopher says
Seriously, what is it with the Olympics and the itchy finger on the downrate button? The above comment has -4 as of this writing. On this thread I have a couple of -1s and even a -8! Other Olympic threads have several downrates for me and others and I’m pretty sure I’ve limited mine to attitude. I have asked questions and offered another view and while some downrating for simple disagreement is OK I think, especially when the only possible response is repetitive, I’m the same person I’ve been all along. I am not trolling or otherwise being disingenuous. I also don’t think support/opposition to the Olympics fits neatly onto the usual political or philosophical spectrum.
petr says
Or, put another way, Quo Vadis…?
I’m not certain, as noted, that this is a promising development for BMG.
jconway says
It deserved a downrate-only one I gave. One is a group of extremists dedicated to stopping any kind of reasonable regulation for firearms, which the founders clearly intended with the clause ‘for the purposes of militia’, while the other is against the idea of an absolute right to free speech which nearly every Supreme Court has upheld by wide majorities. Advocating for unlimited ammo and guns without any public safety oversight is significantly different than saying that the Homeland Security department can’t unilaterally suspend of civil liberties for a sporting event.
Christopher says
They insist they can carry guns wherever, whenever, and however they want without consequence or other considerations. Some here seem to want to demonstrate likewise wherever, whenever, and however they want. At the end of the day I understand that one is dangerous and the other isn’t, but very rarely am I sympathetic to absolutes even on the side I generally favor. Despite being “just a sporting event” the Olympics have proven to be a major target.
jconway says
But how can speech target the Olympics? Other than casting a valuable and critical light on the shady underside to the IOC?
Christopher says
…and that I might share the blame in that. I don’t understand, and I think is stupid and likely unconstitutional, the “boilerplate” language designed to prevent city employees from speaking critically of the bid. It strikes me as thin-skinned, not to mention somewhat contradictory to the idea that local support needs to be gauged as one of the factors the IOC uses in determining who gets the Games.
Regarding demonstrations, though, there are I think legitimate logistical and security concerns regarding large numbers of people in the way. One obvious example is that if the Boston Common is being used for the Games itself, as I understand is a possibility being considered, then of course that particular plot of land would simply not be available for rallies during those two weeks. I for one am fine with that and it’s the scenario of people sounding like they are demanding unlimited access against which I am pushing back the hardest.
TheBestDefense says
will be overtaken by a 14,000 seat arena for beach volleyball arena. Skip the oxymoron of having beach volleyball on the nation’s first urban park. The bid takes over the Common and the roads surrounding it.
chris-rich says
My god, they are so far beyond stupid, it would probably take warp drive to get to them.
I promote Boston and the Commonwealth for free as a hobby because it’s my home and I basically love it while being skeptical of the various dumb stunts the wealthy and powerful try and pull here.
I make videos of area amenities and upload them to you tube. Then I share them on Google plus with more than 2000 people all over the world. I belong to much larger communities like one called “Urban Travel’ which has more than 10,000 members and I regularly link to the Mass Tourism people, who learn from my work.
The point is that this work has me walking all over Boston and using the T because I don’t drive. This means I have direct physical experience of what it’s like to get around. And out along the Bay Circuit Trail past 128, I typically do 7 to 10 mile hikes in the course of making content about it.
The distance between The Harbor Campus and Harvard is 10 miles. That is not ‘walkable’ so we have an inept fabrication right there.
Then you have all the other ridiculous jerry rigged site picks and each one will require a security cordon.
This thing wants compact and all we have is sprawl and pretty dumb asynchronous sprawl at that.
I invite all the boosters here to just go pretend you are some visitor from Kazakh and try to use public transportation and walking to test the efficacy of getting from Franklin Park to Harvard or to the Harbor Campus and Castle Island from Assembly Square.
Even though the Red Line is a straight shot between Harvard and the Harbor Campus, it breaks constantly and the Ashmont run is particularly pitiful. If we finally fix that switch mess in the next 10 years I swear the shock will kill me assuming I’m still here.
Good plans are made out the given, not the imagined or wished for. And there are so many wishes hopes and poorly examined assumptions riding this mess that it is like the Sacred Tabernacle of the Presumptuous Assumption of the Blinding Light skit segment on an old Firesign Theater recording.
I half expect to hear the fake gospel hymn ringing out… “Oh blinding light… Oh light that blinds… I cannot see… look out for me…”
Jasiu says
Although I pretty much would have uprated anyway…
chris-rich says
http://youtu.be/1A5DftXzIqs
HR's Kevin says
Why are we planning “beach” volleyball on the common when there are scores of beaches close to downtown? Seems like a no-brainer.
TheBestDefense says
but it was hard to think of a way to point out how genuinely stupid your question was, as you do not remember that all of those Olympics except the SLC games were before 9/11. I thought it gentler to just give you a downgrade but since you want a response, this is the one you get.
Also, please don’t ask for an explanation as to why I downgraded your comments about the inflated footballs, or I may answer you. See above.
I did answer your comments about suspending the Constitution so a bunch of rich people can have a taxpayer funded two week party because that comment was not just stupid, it was profoundly offensive to those of us who believe in democracy. You do believe in democracy, right?
Christopher says
If so, the thing to do is politely explain how I am mistaken.
TheBestDefense says
You wrote, obviously without doing an iota of research:
“It’s not like one team uses one ball and the other team another ball.”
Fenway49 answered you:
“Each team has a separate set of footballs. When that team is on offense, they use their own balls. This has definitely come up in the coverage.”
I will admit to not knowing this before I heard it repeatedly on the radio all week. OTOH, I would not write on any web site about football as a sport. I have written one post about the football industry but I did do a fair bit of research to make sure I got the details right.
But let me be clear that your real offense was the rapidity with which you were willing to shred the Bill of Rights, not just give up your own rights but your willingness to take them from everyone.
Christopher says
…which is how I acknowledge people who are willing to provide info or answer a question. I had made the original comment in multiple conversations with people and nobody corrected me; in fact many including those more into football than I (not a high standard by any stretch) agreed with my logic, so I had no inclination it might be inaccurate.
jconway says
Anything before 9/11 doesn’t count as a fair comparison. Particularly Atlanta which is obviously something security types do not want to be repeated. Our lockdown after the Marathon and the way the BPD corralled protestors into pens during the 2004 convention are cited as positive assets by the IOC. Salt Lake City had extensive NSA survelliance. Anyone who cares even an iota about civil liberties should be concerned about this, and it’s clear it’s not a priority for you.
Christopher says
…which is of course best remembered for having arrested the wrong guy, and of course there was Munich in 1972, so I can certainly understand Olympic security without regard to 9/11.
Jasiu says
If someone wants the Olympics bad enough that they are willing to throw away my and everyone else’s Constitutional rights in order to get the Games, I suppose there is no changing their position.
SomervilleTom says
I appreciate you sharing your view of our fundamental constitutional protections. It allows me to calibrate how much or how little attention to pay to virtually all of your commentary here.
When you so casually discard these bedrock principles of American life, any relationship between your resulting political views and mine is purely coincidental. I had not realized, until now, just how far apart we are.
It is no wonder that you and I have such profoundly different views of the issues we debate here.
petr says
Without agree with what he did say, I’ll note that he did not discard anything. Somebody else did. Your candor, which is edging into rancor, is misplaced.
If bedrock principles of American life are to be invoke then by all means let us invoke all of them, including patient sufferance:
accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
I do not think that you and he are opposed. I think that you and he are on different places on the spectrum of patient sufferance, necessity and call to duty…
Christopher says
I suspect we agree a lot more than we disagree, though I have often found your mentality a lot more 1960s than mine.
mimolette says
Via Garrett Epps: apparently the IOC has now written to say that the provision is meaningless and boilerplate and we shouldn’t worry our precious little heads over it, it totally doesn’t mean what its plain language says it means.
If they have any explanation for its existence, or any alternative interpretation to offer, the article doesn’t mention it. The full text of the letter isn’t up on MassLive yet, so maybe there is such an explanation buried in it somewhere. But somehow, I suspect not.
mimolette says
I never claimed to be able to proofread, but wow, so much worse than my usual proofreading fails . . .
paulsimmons says
…stuff happens.
Even then, I should have put the percentage at 41.99.