As requested by the First Circuit Court in the case of Stephen & Bethany Scaer v City of Nashua, the District Court entered a declaratory judgment last night.
The City of Nashua has conceded that, if the Citizen Flagpole was a forum for private speech during that time, then the City has engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. Any resumption of the City’s policy of during that time would be
unconstitutional.
The court has now definitively declared the city’s flag policy unconstitutional, consistent with the First Circuit’s opinion from late December.
Institute for Free Speech attorney Nathan Ristuccia, the lead litigator in the case, offered the following comment: “We’re pleased that the Court has now definitively ruled that the city cannot administer its flag program in a way that favors some viewpoints over others. Governments may not open a forum for public participation and then decide which messages are acceptable.”
The City is already debating an ordinance to end the practice of a citizens’ flagpole.
The flagpoles on City Hall grounds, including on the plaza in front of City Hall, are exclusively controlled by city government. The City shall determine what flags will be flown and during what time periods and does not seek input from any other sources. The flagpoles are not for use by the public or any private individuals or entities for expression but are solely for city government to convey messages it chooses. The term “citizens flagpole” is disavowed and shall not be used by any city employee to refer to any flagpole on City Hall grounds. Such flagpoles are not public fora. To the extent any such flagpole has ever been a public forum or a limited public forum, the forum is closed.
.
If Nashua cannot legally or constitutionally control what “speech” the public displays, it won’t allow anyone to express speech on its flagpoles at all.
Going back years, we predicted all of this, but much like Steve and Beth Scaer, the city and its proglodyte social-media militia spat on all of us virtually, and often. As if they were the exception to the rule. Even after Shurtleff v City of Boston, the Machiavellian Narcissistic Psychopath-in-chief, Mayor Donchess, persisted in his imperiousness.
And lost.
Badly.
It makes me smile, not just because the arrogant prick lost and the Constitution won, but because he can’t use city “resources” to promote radical left-wing ideas and causes.
Still smiling.
Note: Both Beth and Stephen Scaer are longtime contributors to GraniteGrok.com
