Lol. There are enough other semi-reputable things to blame. Twitter, politicians, “woke” Silicon Valley businesses, hell even boogeymen like the woke mob or regulations. Remote work didn’t cause a short-term shortfall or a bank run

This is funny-but-not-funny. They're not wrong that being unable to enforce any civility code will discourage quality people from seeking public office. It's already a problem. Huge numbers of decent people are quitting or avoiding public office because it's not worth the constant confrontation with rage-babies. We're going to end up with people in office who are just there for the grift, and pathologically contentious people like MTG or Boebert who relish in the trash talk theater.

Wow. Just wow.

Quit. Lots of jobs suck. The option is quitting.

Awesome defense.

MASSHOLES UNITE!

OK so that works for people that are already hired but what about the hiring process?

Also, given your response… you seem to think I’m defending somebody/something, I am not

I was literally asking how do we hire “good” people in a position of authority…

The reason I used quotes is to emphasize, the fact I believe good and bad is a spectrum rather than a binary classification…

[deleted]

Historically? Shutter the police department and open a new one, putting people you can trust to do good things in the face of adversity (like cops who were pushed out of the previous department for whistleblowing or refusing to engage in malfeasance) in charge of setting up the new system.

This was the traditional FBI strategy for dealing with bad departments and it works well, while most other approaches don't. Getting good people to be cops is difficult while bad cops are calling the shots and actively working to keep them out.

Getting good folks in charge from the get go lets them develop appropriate methods of identifying and retaining good officers appropriate to their locality.

[deleted]

Mr. Hill?

Naw, if offensive or rude speech is protected, if the defendant has been asked what they plead, for example, and they say “not guilty, mister Hitler”, that should be fully protected.

I never said anything about speaking out of turn or disrupting proceedings with outbursts.

Judges, and you’d know this if you’d been an officer of the courts or spent any amount of time in court rooms, regularly use contempt as punishment for when someone is rude to them, even if it’s within their allowed moment of response during the process.

Edit: ahh, downvoted for saying something you dislike, eh? I imagine you’d love to have me thrown in jail for that, censorious individual that you are.

Luckily I acknowledge your right to downvote as speech. A favor I’m sure you wouldn’t return.

That’s ostensibly what it’s for, but judges routinely use it as a cudgel for what they deem offensive or inappropriate speech, especially when directed at them, even if only done in moments where those in court are allowed to speak.

They have the latitude to use it in practically any manner they want, and they routinely use it specifically to coerce decorum.

Insult a cops mother while having active felony warrants is a pretty dumb move.

Contempt of court isn't really about rudeness as much as allowing the court process to continue. If you're having outbursts in court and you're not listening when the judge says to move on its interfering with the court process. Contempt of court is when you disobey orders from the court or otherwise interfere or obstruct the court process.

[deleted]

A court of law is not a public discourse not a place to air your grievances. It is there to decide if someone did something to break the law or to at least decide responses Based on the law.

Calling a judge Hitler because they interpreted the law against you or someone you IS contempt.

It disrupts and slows proceedings. Potentially tampering with jury views in a way that isn't legal and frankly is just a baby throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting their way. So yes, a judge can say the person is in contempt and remove them. But unlike public meetings, there are ways to redress the judges decision and make a trial a mistrial if they push too far.

Now he has one for each ear. 😢

They're not called Massholes for nothin!

I mean, if you want to entirely miss the point of the previous comment in favor of pedantry, feel free, but the same principle that first amendment rights are sacrosanct, even if rude or offensive, should obviously apply to courts as well.

Judges routinely use contempt of court as bludgeon to coerce decorum, because offending their delicate sensibilities, or gods forfend, impugning their character, is such a slight on their dignity that the hammer of the state must be used to prevent it.

Judges are babies, which is why they’d never allow this in court. Any legal argument as to why that’s acceptable is just post facto justification as to why their paper thin feelings are more important than rights.

Good for you asshole, welcome to Massachusetts. /s

[removed]

It's why they want even more power

It's bizarre to me that there are people out there who genuinely believe they have the 'right' not to be offended.

Maybe read the article? Even just the first paragraph would show your comment has no value considering what it says.

Here, I'll help.

"In a decision that jangled the nerves of some elected officials, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last week reaffirmed a basic liberty established by the founding fathers: the right to be rude at public meetings."

Note that 3 extra words at the end of the paragraph change the context from "being rude anywhere and everywhere" to just during public meetings.

Now, you Miiiight try to argue court is a public meeting, but it isn't. Many states require the courts to be Public, but they aren't considered Meetings and so they are not Public Meetings.