Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Peddling Soliciting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to let police keep 'no‑solicit' list fails after free‑speech concerns
Summary
Article 21, which would have authorized the police to maintain a list of residents who opt out of door‑to‑door solicitation and required licenses for certain hawkers, failed 91–95 amid concerns about chilling political and religious speech and enforcement burdens on police.
Town Meeting rejected Article 21, a proposal to amend the peddling and soliciting code to establish a police‑maintained 'do‑not‑knock' list and impose licensing requirements for commercial hawkers and solicitors.
Rosemary Kerry, who held the article for discussion, asked what problem the amendment sought to solve and warned of potential chilling effects on political and religious canvassing. Supporters, including members of the police department, said the proposal was intended to protect residential privacy and help officers identify unauthorized commercial solicitors. In response, the chair noted that nonprofit groups (for example, scouts and nonprofit sales) are exempt under state law; the police representative said the opt‑out list would be a public record with addresses available for legitimate vendors.
Opponents argued the change could impede First Amendment activity and disproportionately burden interaction between residents and political or religious canvassers, and suggested simpler steps — such as putting 'No Soliciting' signs on doors — could achieve the stated privacy goals. The article failed by counted vote (91 in favor, 95 opposed).
