BANGOR, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – A free speech watchdog group called the city of Bangor’s recent policy to threaten residents with legal action if they make what the city considers to be false, harmful statements as unconstitutional and “repugnant” to the First Amendment.
First amendment rights.
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has sent two letters to the city of Bangor stating the city’s actions in January to create the speech policy was unconstitutional.
“The First Amendment flatly prohibits government entities from bringing defamation actions, even against speakers who make knowingly false statements,” the Feb. 24 letter stated. “If Bangor officials believe a constituent has made a false statement about the City, they can publicly condemn the statement, express disagreement, or say why they believe it inaccurate. What they may not do is sue or otherwise punish the speaker.”
FIRE didn’t receive a response from the city to the first letter and sent another letter dated March 21 that stated, “Governments cannot be defamed. The Supreme Court has left no doubt about this. The prospect of the government hauling speakers into court for allegedly false criticism is repugnant to the First Amendment.”
It continued, “Bangor is resurrecting an outdated and unconstitutional practice of governments suing their own citizens for ‘false’ speech. When governments claim this power, they inevitably use it to stifle criticism,” FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr said in a statement to Michigan News Source. “The city has no authority to make its taxpayers bankroll legal actions that seek to silence them.”
How did the controversy start?
The controversy started in Bangor, which has a population of about 2,000 people, over a dispute involving resident Steve Honeycutt, who served on city commissions. Honeycutt objected that the city’s manager also served as the police chief.
During the debate, the city claimed that false statements were made and in January came up with its policy of taking residents to court.
The city’s attorney Scott Graham spoke about the policy at a January city council meeting.
MORE NEWS: Popping the Bubble: Michigan’s Move to Ban Soda from SNAP
Graham claimed the city’s policy was not limiting free speech, but only going after statements that were deemed to be “absolutely untrue” and it was “limiting false statements, especially statements that are knowingly false that damage the reputation of the city, its elected officials and its appointed officials.”
Alleged false claims online.
Graham gave an example of comments made “on the internet” such as a claim that the city manager received two paychecks as being false.
” … make a knowingly false statement, or a statement that is so easily shown to be false, ‘The city manager gets two paychecks.’ They don’t have a right to do that. They don’t have a right to defame a person by making a knowingly false statement that harms reputations,” Graham said in a video at the January meeting. “So when someone says, ‘The city is trying to stop the expression or political speech.’ Well, they probably have a right to say the city is being too harsh on opinions or political speech. That’s their opinion. They have a right to say it. But if someone says something that is an objective fact, can be verified, is not verified, is a false statement, they have no right to do that. … People make knowingly false statements … people look at those things, some people will believe the statements, well, that shows the measure of damages for those who have been defamed because their reputations are harmed.”