The Mayor of Weymouth, Sue Kay, is in a controversy over her removal of the Tinytown Gazette from the Whipple Senior Center. As reported in The Patriot Ledger, she banned the paper from the building after an editorial in which the author stated that the Mayor and town councilors were going to get a raise, which she says was inaccurate and a misrepresentation.
The author of the editorial in question stated that Kay and the Weymouth town councilors were going to get pay raises. According to Kay, this misrepresentation by the author was irresponsible and the reason why she ordered the papers removed. According to Kay, she was “letting [her] emotions get involved in [her] judgment.” Kay said that only after talking to the town’s Solicitor did she realize that her actions violated the First Amendment.
The paper was originally ordered removed by Kay on February 10. According to an email I have that was sent from the Mayor to the publisher of the paper, the Mayor said the following on February 15: “Is there a reason why you sent it[, an email about the removal of the paper by the Mayor,] to other news agencies before checking with me to see if it was true?” Kay then says she apologized to seniors at the senior center on February 17.
Looking at the situation from a logical point of view, Kay’s sequence of events does not add up. The paper was removed on February 10 and a full five days later on February 15, Kay still did not think or care that her actions violated The First Amendment, as shown by the email she sent to the paper’s publisher. If she had thought or cared that her actions violated the First Amendment at the time she sent the email, she would have understood why the publisher had contacted other news organizations.
At some time between the 15th and 17th, Kay allegedly came to realize that her actions did violate the First Amendment. Compared to the five days she had to talk to the town Solicitor before the email was sent, it seems unlikely she had time to talk to him in the two days or less after the email was sent when she realized her actions violated the First Amendment. That leads to the first possibility for the Mayor’s action: that she knew her action violated the First Amendment but did it anyway.
The only other option is not much better for the Mayor. The second possibility is that she knows nothing about the U.S. Constitution. If she knew even the basic principles behind it, she would have known that her action was unconstitutional. Assuming that she is telling the truth, then she does not know the basic principles behind the supreme law of the country which as an elected official she is bound to follow. This possibility may be even worse than the first.
There is not any other realistic possibility for the Mayor’s actions in this case. Either she knew full well that her actions were unconstitutional or she knows nothing about the Constitution. Either way, both of these possibilities do not look good for the Mayor. If someone is going to be the Mayor of a town, he or she must know the laws he or she is supposed to enforce and respect them enough not to violate them.
edgarthearmenian says
after all. Haven’t you seen some of the clowns down there who have been elected to the School Committee year after year?
christopher says
Move along, nothing to see here.