Ridgewood leaders host discussion on civility
November 28, 2014 Last updated: Friday, November 28, 2014, 12:31 AM
By Jodi Weinberger
STAFF WRITER |
The Ridgewood News
Ridgewood leaders came together this week to discuss the need for more civility in public discourse.
With many divisive issues taking hold of Ridgewood over the last few years – Valley Hospital, multifamily housing, cell tower applications, the Graydon ramp, the Schedler debate, and Skype votes, among others – leaders believe that often conversations about these matters are hijacked by incivility.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn, who called for the meeting and invited community volunteers from various boards and houses of worship, led the meeting along with Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck and the Rev. Jan Phillips, head of the Community Relations Advisory Board of Ridgewood and Glen Rock.
A handful of residents also showed up to the Nov. 24 meeting to participate.
“This is not about stifling the conversation,” Aronsohn said. “We think this will enrich the conversation. Ridgewood is a community that thrives on discourse and interaction.”
Hauck said fostering civility is particularly challenging as it is a broader, societal issue that expands well beyond the village.
“How can we be more of a ‘we’ community in a ‘me’ world?” Hauck said. “Even as adults we struggle with cooperation, but we need to work together.”
https://www.northjersey.com/community-news/leaders-focus-on-fosteringthe-good-1.1142831
What a bunch of nonsense.
The mayor is simply taking a page out of the _resident’s playbook, calling for civility only after he and his minions have already distorted the public discourse, intimidated or demonized well-meaning political opponents, and generally done the damage he intends to do. Even this event is nothing more than a belligerent shot across the bow to those who would come to public meetings in the future and dare to voice a contrary view at the public microphone, or otherwise level any well-deserved criticism the Mayor’s way. To his mind, now that we’ve gone and taken the trouble of having a silly public meeting about the need for ‘civility in public discourse’, we have established a new norm, in accordance with which anyone who goes to the microphone to disagree with or criticize the Mayor or his friends is, by definition, engaging in a social ‘taboo’, and will therefore have voluntarily opened themselves up to immediate public abuse from the elected official DuJour, shamelessly served with a culturally toxic side-dish of relish, impunity, and maddening condescension.
Problem solved!
From Northjersey.com referring to the naming of Franklin Turnpike. I find the demeanor or Mr. Franklin similar to that of the Three amigos. Have patience and read the following.
“The Franklin in question was Ben’s illegitimate son, William, whose politics were far removed from his dad’s. Ben was part of the Colonial revolution. William was a staunch loyalist and, in fact, the Colonial governor of New Jersey for 13 years, appointed in 1762 by no less than King George III. It was during this period that the turnpike was developed and named for William. Franklin Lakes is also named for the former governor.
William made no secret of his loyalist leanings and his devotion to the king. And in William, King George clearly had a man he could trust. In William’s appointment, the king granted remarkable authority to his new governor: “We do hereby give and grant unto you full power and authority to suspend any of the members of our said council from sitting, voting and assisting therein if you shall find just cause for so doing.”
Later in the appointment document George said: “And you shall and may likewise from time to time as you shall judge it necessary adjourn, prorogue [discontinue] and dissolve all general assemblies as aforesaid.”
Translation: No trial, no hearing, no appeal, no dissent. For the king’s colonial councils it would be William’s way or the highway.
Wait just a Ridgewood minute – Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli, and Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck all participated in this meeting. Isn’t that considered a quorum in terms of the Village Council? If so, why wasn’t this billed as an offical meeting of the Council, with minutes taken and legal notice given? A violation of the NJ Open Public Meetings Act or not? Matt Rogers where are you?
Exactly #3 Mayor Paul Aronsohn,Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck hosted the meeting and , Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli, made comments. Well it sound like an open public meeting which was not posted in a timely manner ( Friday for a Monday Meeting) The next questions. Were there meeting minutes taken and if so when will they be available to the public?
“Baney also called out The Ridgewood Blog, a news and opinion aggregation website, for contributing to incivility.” Baney Who is a member of the anti Valley Hospital group had no problem when commenter on this blog blasted Valley Hospital. Where was she the?. These people are all cut from the same cloth.
Baney also called out The Ridgewood Blog, a news and opinion aggregation website, for contributing to incivility.
James you know what ironic. People send thing for you to post and make comment on this blog when they want their cause championed but turn around and condemn this blog when they don’t need it anymore or they disagree with other posters. Which ever way the wind is blowing like the Three Amigos.
Of course Mr. Pucciarelli was there, he is attached by a firm cable to Mr. Arohsohn and Ms. Hauck. And of course the Sunshine Law was violated. We have come to expect this from our Deputy Mayor.
He will reply that he was in the audience and identified himself and his stance on civility just like the other “uninvited” members did. But let’s be perfectly accurate here – Mr. Pucciarelli should not have been at that meeting in the first place. His participation by stating his name, position, and his opinion on civility in public discourse makes this a clear violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. He knew going into this meeting that he was NOT TO SPEAK and yet, of course, he did. This continual violation of the Sunshine Law by our elected Village Council members must stop.
Where is the League of Woman Voters ?
This meeting was like putting lipstick on a pig.
The Deputy Mayor cannot for one moment pretend ignorance of the Sunshine Law. His adherence to the law was called into question early in his term – this gave him plenty of time to learn the law that he had been accused of breaking. The Village Attorney looked into the matter and decided that the DM had not violated the law at that time. Regardless, Mr. Pucciarelli knew full well that he should not speak last Monday night, but……………surprise surprise………….he spoke! Presto, the law was broken.
Of course Mr. Pucciarelli was there, he is attached by a firm cable to Mr. Arohsohn
Mr Arohsohn should keep his ATTACK DOG on a shorter leash
Rev. Al is above the law. He answers to a greater power.
Yes #11 his ego.
Where are the newly elected council people in all this? Why didn’t the Ridgewood Rag interview them?
Im waiting for the phone in story from Chris Harris. Or is Chris just waiting for the the mayor to approve the story.
Ho Ho ho, we know for a fact that Chris Harris was not there……so if he writes a story it will be from a press release, not a news story.
Free speech is often cited as a cornerstone of American democracy. Individuals or a group have the right to express themselves and say whatever they want with fairly few restrictions. As long as the speech does not imminently incite violence, constitute slander or libel, or have excessively objectionable content, the speech is allowed. This protects crucial kinds of free expression, like criticisms of the government or U.S. policy, the publication of potentially risqué or provocative works and the ability to mock others for comedic effect. It allows for dissenting but respectful viewpoints critical to our system of democracy: people can be heard even if they have an unpopular opinion, and they have the opportunity to convince people of the virtue of their point of view. That said, this country has gone too far in allowing people to say whatever they want, and should curtail speech that is obviously harmful to society, such as hate speech.
Those in support of aggressive civil liberties will protest: What is stopping the government from moving past sensible restrictions on free speech, once they are in place, to something more Orwellian, as in China or other authoritarian regimes? At face value, this is a fair question, but given America’s deeply-held cultural norms and the power of the Internet and social media, such a scenario is highly unlikely. We need only small but significant change to the freedom of speech in this country: namely, the prohibition of unambiguously destructive, hateful speech.
This kind of speech, despite being clearly distasteful, has long been upheld as legal in America because of the First Amendment. In the 1992 case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court said a teenager burning a cross in an African-American family’s yard — an homage to the Ku Klux Klan — was constitutional. Despite the Supreme Court’s statement that this is “reprehensible,” and the clear violation of basic human decency cross-burning entails, the Court upheld this speech as permissable under the Constitution. The Westboro Baptist Church, known worldwide as a hate group which commonly uses racial and homophobic slurs, as well as protesting at funerals “thanking God” for the death of the individual, has their hatred constitutionally protected. The abhorrent “rape guide” from this past winter, posted on Bored at Baker? The individual responsible immediately left the College, but otherwise seemingly faced no legal penalties. If someone were to sit on South Main Street catcalling women, that individual’s “right” to do so is legally protected, as it does not incite immediate violence despite being objectively distressing. Free speech, as outlined in the First Amendment and clarified throughout numerous Supreme Court cases, regrettably allows all of these things.
This situation is patently absurd. This country is supposedly built on freedom and equality, not on the right to say whatever you want without significant consequences. Our country should not legally sanction hate speech, through which those in positions of social power can disparage others without legal repercussions. Many other countries limit this kind of speech, particularly speech that could cause undue harm (physical or emotional) to a targeted group of people. South Africa outlaws “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion” and war propaganda. Many European countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, have similar laws regarding racist speech. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that restrictions on free speech are permissible “as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,” allowing for greater flexibility and adaptabilty in a rapidly changing society. Perhaps the most well-known example of sensible restrictions on free speech is that it is illegal in Germany to publish material denying the Holocaust, and German hate speech law takes a hard line against anti-Semitism. How does America benefit from allowing speech that many other developed and democratic countries have wisely deemed to be against their modern values? A line can be drawn and hate speech can be defined through the democratic process. Many other developed and democratic nations have passed laws and instituted legal mechanisms that are quite simple in nature. America should do the same: hate speech is not acceptable and should not be legally protected.
ok so what “hate speech ” is being used in Ridgewood ????
#16, your views are repulsive, and I am ashamed of you for propagating them. There are no “sensible restrictions on free speech,” and whoever thinks that stifling speech eliminates hatred, anger, and violence, is plainly wrong. The answer to hate speech is more speech, not less.
By the way, anyone who wishes to cling to “fire in a crowded theater,” just remember that the ruling was used to imprison Yiddish-speaking pacifists for handing out fliers to protest World War I. Is that “sensible,” #16?
#’s 16 and 17 brought to you courtesy of one of our nation’s finest institutions of higher learning (much more where that came from):
https://thedartmouth.com/2014/11/17/opinion/traynor-fixing-free-speech
Ex- Councilman Harlow must be posting to protect is canidate Gyenn
Some more comments on the Dartmouth article:
Oh, but no one would ever censor HIM. He would be a member of the preferred class, the intelligentsia, the academic elite. He’s one of THOSE people–you know, the ones who know what’s best for the unwashed masses, the ignorant peasants, the simpleton, the pedestrian, the unenlightened. He is of the attitude of free speech for me, but not for thee.
john11 days ago
Zach, what you write is truly troubling. While you are correct that harsh and hateful words do have harmful consequences, the consequences of doing away with one of humanity’s basic rights are much, much more severe. We cannot, as you propose, decide what speech to outlaw through the democratic process. While we democratically decide who are leaders are, we do not democratically decide which members of society, regardless of their unsavory opinions, will receive the full measure of their basic human rights. Although you are confident that social media and the internet will protect against an Orwellian extension to your proposal, I am not so sure. The minute we begin chipping away at free speech, a precedent has been set, and incredible limits to our rights can be rationalized bit by bit. The only way to preserve our freedom of speech where it really matters is to protect freedom of speech everywhere, preserving the integrity of this basic principle of democracy.
Also, the underlying assumption of this article, that by outlawing hate speech we will diminish it, is completely wrong. Rather, outlawing hate speech drives it underground, galvanizes its supporters and draws more attention to it. In Germany, for instance, many free speech advocates bemoan the fact that outlawing hate speech has only attracted more attention and followers to outlawed beliefs. Louis Brandeis, one of the Supreme Courts most LIBERAL justices, once wrote, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” We should all consider this. If speech truly is hateful and wrong, the way to combat it is to expose it in the open for the rubbish that it is, not to push it underground with ineffective laws.
KiteFlyer8911 days ago
D’1411 days ago
You don’t want to be the guy constantly defending their actions with the First Amendment, but you DEFINITELY don’t want to be they guy championing censorship.
MikeV1211 days ago
“How does America benefit from allowing speech that many other developed and democratic countries have wisely deemed to be against their modern values?”
By allowing you to publish this nonsense, while allowing me to call it such.
1L *smh11 days ago
I am having more and more trouble distinguishing parody and satire from legitimately held beliefs. As long as I am personally allowed to define “hate speech,” then I am with you Zach. Disclaimer: this article is hate speech against the Constitution, its drafters, and defenders; congratulations, you are a criminal.
JSA11 days ago
The history of the United States is replete with calls to hold certain forms or expressions of speech as outside the boundaries of free speech. A common thread that binds most of these attempts together is that in retrospect, most people see these attempts at being outrageous.
Pro-censorship folks often like to try to analogize whatever is they want to ban to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. Take a look at the case that line comes from, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s 1919 Supreme Court majority opinion from Schenck v. United States. It involved a guy being prosecuted under the Espionage Act for handing out flyers opposing the draft. The Court deemed this to be a clear and present danger to the US’s war recruitment efforts. Under modern jurisprudence, this would be a shocking abridgment of free speech. (Or perhaps not–see free speech zones.)
Other examples of things that have been censored in the U.S. include pro-abolitionist mail (the Postmaster General refused to let the material mailed from the 1830s until the Civil War), the book Ulysses, pro-socialist materials (or materials that were called pro-socialist, whether they were or not), movies were censored in the U.S. until the Supreme Court found they were protected speech in 1952, etc.
Things people have tried to censor include Dungeons and Dragons, comic books, and video games.
You can’t weaken free speech protections in a way that both gets rid of speech you don’t like (like hate speech) but also protects “good” speech that is under fire in a sea of moral panic, such as what happened with D&D.
Rob McMillin JSA11 days ago
And don’t forget information on how to use birth control. Margaret Sanger was arrested for distributing birth control devices and information via the mails in 1915.
barnburner Rob McMillin9 days ago
If this guy had his way back then, Margaret Sanger would have been imprisoned for hate speech long before starting Planned Parenthood, the viriulent and open racist she was.
KiteFlyer8911 days ago
“In the 1992 case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court said a teenager burning a cross in an African-American family’s yard — an homage to the Ku Klux Klan — was constitutional”
This is also a really bad misrepresentation. There were plenty of grounds for legal action in R.A.V. – this more than meets the standard for, say, harassment – but the specific city ordinance that was used was crafted in such a way that the cross burner’s intentions were the basis of the charge. That’s the unconsitutional part. They did not embrace cross-burning as the sentence implies.
‘That’s trivial’ is a likely response, but in a legal sense it most definitely is not.
Harry Bagatestes KiteFlyer8911 days ago
Thanks for pointing this out. People unfamiliar with court rulings often cite them as being outrageous or wrong without knowing the facts of the case. The woman who sued McDonald’s after being severely burned by coffee that was almost boiling is another case often cited as a good reason for tort reform. When I explain that McDonald’s had been warned over and over that their coffee was burning people and that they only made coffee that hot to extract more coffee from the bean and thus make more money, people tend to look at that ruling differently.
nicole11 days ago
There’s a lot of talk about “we” and “our” in this piece. “Our values, etc.” Who, exactly, are you talking about? I obviously don’t share your values, so I’m not really seeing an “us” here to be talking about. -James Lesser
ni
−
IA_Adam James Lesser7 days ago
5JimBob11 days ago
Oh Boy. First, I’d really, really like to see the citation for the Supreme Court decision that supposedly let somebody burn a cross in someone else’s yard. I suspect there are a few facts missing here somewhere.
Allowing ‘democratic’ judgements (i.e. the loudest most vociferous pressure group) to determine what constitutes “undue harm (physical or emotional)”. would turn every museum, every public forum into a screaming cat fight and lawyer’s playground with everybody being outraged and ’emotionally harmed” at almost everything.
Generally the new calls for restrictions on freedom of speech come from the Left. Fifty years ago the Left was vociferously demanding its untrammeled right to free speech. Now that it’s won the culture wars – at least on college campuses – it wants to consolidate its victory by denying its opponents access to the chief tool it used – unrestricted free speech. The argument above is nothing more than a power grab, and a lousy one at that.
James, I think people here are really more eager just to ban “hate lawn-signs”.
and what qualifies as “Hate Lawn Signs” lol
Any lawn sign that criticizes a regionally significant inherently beneficial use of otherwise tax-revenue-generating chunk of real estate is a “hate lawn sign”.
the 3 clowns Huey, Dewey, and Louie should focus on representing tax payers ,residents and the interests of Ridgewood and then people would not be criticizing them on this blog 24/7 .
Ridgewood is not Hudson County , nor do we have the demographic , Ridgewood is Ridgewood , best to pack up the Hudson County mafia and your developer friends and move back ..