Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and councilors clash over online speech and censure petition at Taunton council meeting
Summary
Public input at the Oct. 14 council meeting centered on a contentious online video and a petition seeking accountability for Councilor Christopher Coit's social-media conduct; speakers invoked First Amendment case law, public-records preservation and requests to refer the matter to the law department for review.
Multiple speakers used the public-input period at the Oct. 14 Taunton council meeting to criticize and defend online political speech, pressing the council to consider formal censure and to preserve records.
Christopher Coit, speaking as a private citizen, defended his posts as protected by the First Amendment and said attempts to silence him were improper. Jen Hoy, who the transcript identifies as a resident and the author of a video that Coit described, addressed the council and said Coit's conduct amounted to mocking and retaliating against constituents; she cited federal appellate case law that limits officials' ability to block or silence constituents on social media. Other residents urged the council to treat public participants with respect and to take action to ensure accountability.
Attorney guidance referenced in the meeting clarified that censure is within the council's authority and does not remove an official from office. A written submission by Jen Hoy requesting censure and related records was referred to the law department and to the council as a whole for review. The clerk and the law office were asked to preserve potentially responsive records, and a resident reported submitting public-records requests and copying the state ethics commission and ACLU.
The chair repeatedly called for decorum in the chamber and the council voted to refer the submission to the law department and council as a whole for review. No formal disciplinary action or removal was taken at the Oct. 14 meeting; the matter will proceed through the council's internal process and the law department for legal advice.
