file photo by Boyd Loving
July 28th ,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, After a federal court judge in Newark denied the dismissal of a freedom of speech violation lawsuit filed by a political operative against the City of Hoboken after he was ejected from the October 21 city council meeting.
Its seems that speech can not restricted during public comment at a council meeting . The previous mayor Paul Aronsohn and his administration tried many times either through rules, ordinances ,intimidation or silly anti free speech committees like the “Civility Committee”.
While readers best describe the new council ,”it’s amazing to watch the new council meetings. Respect for all those who ask questions. Even questions that are asked are answered or will be researched and followed up on. Keep up the good work.”
A reader suggests that some Section’s of the Village Code may violate an individual’s right to Freedom of Speech , we are not so sure :
“Except upon consent of the Council, by the majority vote of those present, each person addressing the Council pursuant to this section shall be required to limit his remarks to five minutes and shall at no time engage in any personally offensive or abusive remarks. On a hearing on ordinances on second reading, a person who has previously addressed the Council on the issue may be permitted a period of no more than an additional five minutes, after all others desirous of speaking on the issue have had an opportunity to do so, provided the comments of the speaker are not repetitive. The Chair shall call any speaker to order who violates any provision of this section.”
As does this one:
“Any person who shall disturb the peace of the Council, make impertinent or slanderous remarks or conduct himself in a boisterous manner while addressing the Council shall be forthwith barred by the presiding officer from further audience before the Council, except that if the speaker shall submit to proper order under these rules, permission for him to continue may be granted by a majority vote of the Council.”
Matt Rogers: Are you on this?
IANAL, but “impertinent or slanderous remarks ” sure sounds like content-based censorship to me. Who’s going to decide what’s impertinent? The council to whom those “impertinent” remarks may be addressed?
not matt rogers, he is in the bed with a few. time for a out side law person from far a way.
Matt Rogers would throw his mother under a bus for an extra nickle. The guy has zero ethics or concern for the public. It’s definitely time to replace that sycophant harlot.
I do not agree that Matt Rogers would throw his mother under a bus. He is a good guy, and very smart. The thing is, he works for the Council, not for the Village. So he as to do their bidding, give them the information they want. His job title should be Village Council Attorney, not Village Attorney. He has to do what they want. He does not work for you and me.
For Matt Rogers to be “a good guy” but just be doing “their bidding” can only mean 1 or 2 things: First, he is willing to compromise his ethics, morals, values, standards, etc., in exchange for money which makes him no better than an expensive harlot, or second, he has *zero* ethics, morals, values, standards, etc. to begin with. I somehow think it’s both but, either way, he needs to be replaced immediately.
I agree completely with Bryan. I’ve seen Rogers lots of times. He cares nothing for Ridgewood residents or anyone in the public. He’s all about his ridiculously high salary and whoever helps him keep it.
Perfectly said Bryan (2:43pm).
And while everyone here roast Mr. Rogers we still have Roberta on the job.What the matter Village Council no balls.
Commenters on this thread need to bone up on libel law. Castigating a practicing attorney must be done with a degree of care that is greater than when one is pummeling a non-professional. If a lie is uttered that forms the basis of an overall message, explicit or implicit, that the attorney in question is unfit for the practice of law, a judge or jury is empowered to declare that libel has occurred. And not just ordinary libel, with respect to which financial damages must be proven to the penny, but libel per se, in which damages are presumed.
sorry he is public figure , an you are no lawyer
That’s right James. Not only is Rogers a public figure because he works in a municipal council but TRUTH is always a defense to any threat of ‘libel’. I think that July 28, 2016 at 6:21 pm anonymous message may have been written by Rogers himself (or someone astroturfing on his behalf.) It’s just another cheap attempt at censorship and silencing the public through intimidation. They’re low enough to do such things. The bottom-line is that rogers is a bum period! Can
6:21 Gail?
thats what we thought
Believe me it was not written by Matt Rogers. He is way too smart and he does not have a big ego. It was written by Price or Pucciarelli
Yes, but then it’s someone astroturfing.
Could be someone astroturfing
Time to call Bergen county prosecutor’s office.
Not Rogers, not Price, and not Pucciarelli. Not astroturfing. Just a word to the wise. Your mileage may vary.
lol nice try, John V
This is a blog for heaven’s sake!. This makes anyone’s effort to suppress free speech through intimidation even more appalling. Those responsible are either astronomically gullible or the same clowns being criticized but hiding from the public. It’s clear that the council and rogers want nothing more than to decide for themselves “who shall disturb the peace” of the council for the purpose of barring them and suppressing free speech. It’s just monstrous how they don’t stop there. I’m sure they’d also love to extend their egocentric megalomania to controlling the discussions in the blog.
Marc, where does it say that discussions in this blog are not to encompass relevant issues of law? Most people know that, for the most part, the laws and regulations of this country do not allow anyone to interfere with PJ’s right to run his blog how he sees fit. For example, he is free under the First Amendment to facilitate anonymous commenting, and to post comments or leave them unposted, at his own discretion, and without fear of reproach. On the other hand, anyone whose comings and goings are discussed on this blog is presumably free to peruse that discussion for apparent infringements on their right to be free from unjust attacks on their character and reputation. Once again, this is a free country. That’s why we have courts of law and equity. Back to what PJ and his commenters can do, though, they are generally empowered to relate the truth about a given person, as well as any opinions they may hold about that person, based on true facts, or even based on facts that are not strictly known to be true but are instead presumed (“If person V really did W to person X, then they have violated Natural Law Y and should by all that is right and holy be struck down by lightning hurled by deity Z.”). This is as it should be in our society. That’s free speech in action. Trouble, if it ever does come, is typically borne on the back of the false fact, the lie, the canard, the truth-denying whopper, insinuated into the discussion in such a way or at such a time as to damage someone’s reputation, or at least cause more damage thereto than the true facts and circumstances would collectively have caused in the absence of the dirty work done by the objectively false fact. (Regarding the latter, do we not find fault with the competitor who is perceived to be ‘piling on’, or worse yet, kicking a man when he’s down?) Bottom line, free speech rights there are, to be sure, and in abundance, but responsibilities too. If an appropriate balance cannot be struck between the two, civil society ceases to function.
Haha, just catching up on the blog after not reading in a while. Thanks for the shout out James but it wasn’t me commenting earlier on this thread!