---

“Good morning, members of the Board. I am writing to address what I view as a critical issue regarding the public comment period of our meetings. I believe that the rules on public speaking as presented by Chairman Wood have been selectively enforced by the Chairman. Allowing speakers to praise officials by name, for example allowing members of the board and public to praise Jane Fulk, while prohibiting in his reiteration of the rules governing the public comment period, speakers from criticizing officials by name. This practice is a clear example of viewpoint discrimination, a form of content-based regulation that the Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned as unconstitutional.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, including the right to criticize our elected officials. This right is essential for a healthy democracy. If we only allow praise and silence criticism, we create an echo chamber where dissenting voices are suppressed and the public is denied access to the full range of perspectives on important issues. The principle of viewpoint neutrality demands that if we allow laudatory comments about officials by name, we must also allow critical comments by name.

I understand that some may be uncomfortable with criticism, especially when directed at specific individuals. However, the First Amendment protects even unpopular or offensive speech, as long as it does not fall into one of the very narrow categories of unprotected speech, like defamation or incitement.

Let me be clear: While we have a right to free speech, that right is not without limits. We are all still subject to the laws against defamation, harassment, and other legal restrictions. If a speaker makes false and defamatory statements about an official, they can be held accountable in court. Likewise, if a speaker engages in threatening or harassing behavior, they may face legal and civil consequences. But simply disagreeing with an official, or even expressing that disagreement forcefully, is not a basis for censorship.

I urge that Chairman Wood immediately cease this practice of viewpoint discrimination and ensure that all members of the public have an equal opportunity to express their views, whether those views are laudatory or critical. A truly open and transparent government welcomes and respects the full spectrum of public opinion.”

Below are two relevant cites.

• Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995): This is a landmark case dealing directly with viewpoint discrimination in a university setting (which is considered a limited public forum). The Court held that the University’s refusal to fund a student religious publication, while funding other student publications, constituted viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment. This case powerfully establishes that viewpoint discrimination is a subset of content discrimination and is presumptively unconstitutional.
• Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist. (1993): This case involved a school district that allowed community groups to use its facilities for social, civic, and recreational purposes, but denied access to a religious group that wanted to show a film. The Court found this to be viewpoint discrimination because the denial was based on the religious viewpoint expressed in the film.

These cases make it clear that Chairman Woods actions likely constitute unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. By allowing praise of officials that mentions names while prohibiting criticism that mentions names, he is favoring one viewpoint over another. This is precisely the type of viewpoint-based restriction that the Supreme Court has consistently struck down.

It is important to note that the specific facts of each case are crucial. While these cases provide strong support for the principles I have outlined, a court would ultimately consider all the circumstances surrounding the public comment period in Patrick County to determine whether the Chairmans actions are constitutional. However, on the face of it, the practice appears to run afoul of established First Amendment jurisprudence.

Best Regards
-Steve Marshall, Patrick County Board of Supervisors Blue Ridge District. Serving all of Patrick County.

“This publication is subject to copyright protection under applicable law. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited and may be subject to legal action.”