STAND UP FOR FREE SPEECH IN CROTON - A LETTER TO THE EDITOR FROM PAUL STEINBERG:
“It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
In 250 years of American history, that is the single most important sentence ever uttered by a court. It isthe basis of the rule of law and comes from Marbury v Madison (1803). The great Justice John Marshallwrote that sentence, along with another famous dictum: “An act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
In Croton, the rule of law is being deliberately and actively undermined by our Mayor, Trustees, and even Village Attorney Subin. On September 10, Village Trustee Cara Politi spoke from the dais in her official capacity. I urge every resident to view her statement in full (it begins at 2:20 on the official video).
The statement is noteworthy for several reasons. Trustee Politi begins by saying: “My stance—and my colleagues know this—is that when we hired this code enforcement person you know my stance was always that if Robbins has to take their vitamin banners down then you know he can move his banner to the flagpole. That’s that fair enforcement that out attorney was talking about.”
The first part of Ms. Politi’s sentence has serious legal ramifications, but let us leave that aside for a moment and address the equating of advertising banner regulation with political speech restrictions. As Trustee Politi and Village Attorney Subin are aware, this is not true. Common sense tells us that advertising is different from political speech, and courts agree.
In 44 Liquormart v Rhode Island (1996) the Supreme Court laid out the standard for regulation of commercial speech, such as that displayed in Croton by Robbins Pharmacy. It is a much lower standard than for political speech. In fact the reason the 1996 case went to the Supreme Court was because there was confusion over whether the liquor store even had First Amendment protection.
There has never been any confusion (except among our Board of Trustees) that political speech has the highest level of Constitutional protection.
In her letter to Village Attorney Subin, the AAG for Civil Rights cited Boos v Barry (1988) in reminding Croton that political speech lies “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.”
Trustee Politi said: “MAGA and the right-wing media bullied us into withdrawing this without dealing with the merits, although as Josh [Subin] stated they don’t want to abide by the same rules that we want to abide and I do think a very very tiny microcosm of what is happening around the country which is laws for us and whatever they want for them.”
Which rules Ms. Politi and Mr. Subin want to abide by is irrelevant: on matters of free speech, the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution have established what the rules are. Neither Ms. Politi nor Mr. Subin have any exemption from the rule of law by virtue of their elected position or profession. Nor may the Croton Board of Trustees promulgate a village code provision which is repugnant to the Constitution.
Attorney Subin says that “threats of civil action against local governments was also in my opinion uncalled for.” Allegations that a person is being deprived of their Constitutional rights under color of law is precisely what the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice investigates. Anybody who believes that their civil rights have been violated may file a report online or by mail to the Civil Rights Division.
Trustee Nora Nicholson echoes Attorney Subin: “A routine code dispute was on the radar of the Department of Justice.” I leave it to my fellow residents of Croton to read the DoJ letter for themselves (it is posted at the Croton Chronicle) and see whether this was merely a routine code dispute or whether it was a violation of a resident’s freedom of speech.
Trustee Nicholson is no fan of free speech, either: “I believe perhaps naively that the American justice system should be allowed to function as intended with each side making its arguments in a court of law. The situation should have remained a local matter resolved through the appropriate legal channels. Instead it became something very different. Social media amplified the story, spreading it to millions within days.”
The irony—Ms. Nicholson says that Mr. Amicola should have kept his mouth shut about how Ms. Nicholson and her colleagues were trying to shut up Mr. Amicola. I doubt that she would tell Kilmar Abrego Garcia to keep his mouth shut till he got into court. I doubt that she would tell Mahmoud Khalil to keep his mouth shut.
I would not tell Mr. Garcia or Mr. Khalil to keep silent till they got into court. The difference between me and Ms. Nicholson is that I have the same passion for freedom of speech regardless of who is speaking and regardless of the viewpoint expressed.
Trustee Nicholson concludes: “This atmosphere of intimidation is exactly what some in power hope for to silence officials, to weaken trust in the rule of law, and make communities too afraid to enforce their own codes. Sadly this is where we find ourselves in 2025 and we all need to do better.”
Ms. Nicholson spoke those words from the most powerful place in Croton: as a member of the Board of Trustees with a $24 million budget, directing a Village Manager who sends Code Enforcement Officer Snilsberg out to issue court citations for political flag displays, and this is done pursuant to Village Code.
It is not Trustee Nicholson who is being silenced. She literally has a bi-weekly platform broadcast live and available worldwide online.
Two times in a row, Mr. Amicola has been targeted. Two times in a row, Mr. Amicola has had to retain an attorney to defend against the village. Two times in a row, the matter has been dropped prior to judicial review. Both times it was because the village decided to drop the matter.
Village Attorney Subin says that Croton will “make related code amendments so that we can uphold the spirit of fair and consistent code enforcement with an enduring belief in equal justice under law.”
What is “fair” and what constitutes “justice” are subjective concepts. They are also irrelevant to the legal case involving Mr. Amicola. What is relevant is the Constitution and case law from the SecondCircuit and the US Supreme Court. Attorney Subin refuses to even acknowledge the case law distinction between commercial and political speech. Nor does Mayor Pugh, who went to a reputable law school.
This refusal is not an accident: the people on that dais are intelligent and have legal counsel on retainer.
I can only come to the conclusion that this is a case of knowing defiance of the rule of law. That is far more troubling than a single political flag on Grand Street.
On a personal level, what Mayor Pugh and Manager Healy have done to Mr. Snilsberg is inexcusable. If you haven’t done so yet, please look at the video starting at 2:20. According to what Trustee Politi stated (without objection from anyone at the Sept. 10 meeting), at the time Mr. Snilsberg was hired there were conversations among the Trustees about going after Robbins Pharmacy in order to provide an avenue to compel Mr. Amicola to “move his banner to the flagpole. That’s that “fair enforcement” that our attorney was talking about.”
I doubt Mr. Snilsberg was aware of the 2021 meeting between Mr. Amicola, his attorney, the Village Engineer, and the Code Enforcement Officer. At that meeting they discussed the basis for a federal suit on Constitutional grounds. After that meeting, the village dropped the matter.
I doubt Mr. Snilsberg was aware that at the time he was accepting the job, Trustee Politi and her
colleagues were already talking about getting to Mr. Amicola via Robbins. I doubt Mr. Snilsberg thought that if the Amicola matter got publicity (a distinct probability) that Mayor Pugh and Manager Healy would blame “apolitical” village civil servants.
In assigning blame, the Mayor and Village Manager not only failed in a fundamental matter of leadership but they also made Mr. Snilsberg a target for every nutcase with access to the internet. That neither Mayor Pugh nor Manager Healy have taken responsibility is a fact which we as residents of Croton should consider carefully.
In New York, officials are required to swear a “Public Officer Oath of Office” (DoS form 2188). They attest that they will “support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York.” This is a solemn ceremony, often attended by members of the official’s family. It is a serious matter.
Mayor Pugh and Manager Healy placed Thor Snilsberg in an impossible position. In his capacity as a public officer, Mr. Snilsberg was asked to perform an unconstitutional act. That has ethical considerations, but it also has ramifications for him personally. During the past few days it has become a mantra of Mayor Pugh and Manager Healy that the issuance of process to Mr. Amicola was an “apolitical” action taken by unnamed village employees. Of course, we all know they mean Mr. Snilsberg and all the mentally disturbed people on the internet know they mean Mr. Snilsberg.
Based on the statements made by Mayor Pugh, Manager Healy, and Attorney Subin the village is revising the code in anticipation of going after Mr. Amicola for a third time. Perhaps by then our village leaders will have the backbone to not throw the Code Enforcement Officer under the bus.
Whether it is by direct action such as the prosecution of Mr. Amicola or whether it is by indirect pressure such as intimidating people from speaking out for fear of being called anti-Semitic under the recently passed Croton-on-Hudson IHRA definition, freedom of speech is being undermined in Croton.
All of us are silenced when any of us are silenced. Stand up for free speech in Croton.
--Paul Steinberg, Croton-on-Hudson
“It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
In 250 years of American history, that is the single most important sentence ever uttered by a court. It isthe basis of the rule of law and comes from Marbury v Madison (1803). The great Justice John Marshallwrote that sentence, along with another famous dictum: “An act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
In Croton, the rule of law is being deliberately and actively undermined by our Mayor, Trustees, and even Village Attorney Subin. On September 10, Village Trustee Cara Politi spoke from the dais in her official capacity. I urge every resident to view her statement in full (it begins at 2:20 on the official video).
The statement is noteworthy for several reasons. Trustee Politi begins by saying: “My stance—and my colleagues know this—is that when we hired this code enforcement person you know my stance was always that if Robbins has to take their vitamin banners down then you know he can move his banner to the flagpole. That’s that fair enforcement that out attorney was talking about.”
The first part of Ms. Politi’s sentence has serious legal ramifications, but let us leave that aside for a moment and address the equating of advertising banner regulation with political speech restrictions. As Trustee Politi and Village Attorney Subin are aware, this is not true. Common sense tells us that advertising is different from political speech, and courts agree.
In 44 Liquormart v Rhode Island (1996) the Supreme Court laid out the standard for regulation of commercial speech, such as that displayed in Croton by Robbins Pharmacy. It is a much lower standard than for political speech. In fact the reason the 1996 case went to the Supreme Court was because there was confusion over whether the liquor store even had First Amendment protection.
There has never been any confusion (except among our Board of Trustees) that political speech has the highest level of Constitutional protection.
In her letter to Village Attorney Subin, the AAG for Civil Rights cited Boos v Barry (1988) in reminding Croton that political speech lies “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.”
Trustee Politi said: “MAGA and the right-wing media bullied us into withdrawing this without dealing with the merits, although as Josh [Subin] stated they don’t want to abide by the same rules that we want to abide and I do think a very very tiny microcosm of what is happening around the country which is laws for us and whatever they want for them.”
Which rules Ms. Politi and Mr. Subin want to abide by is irrelevant: on matters of free speech, the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution have established what the rules are. Neither Ms. Politi nor Mr. Subin have any exemption from the rule of law by virtue of their elected position or profession. Nor may the Croton Board of Trustees promulgate a village code provision which is repugnant to the Constitution.
Attorney Subin says that “threats of civil action against local governments was also in my opinion uncalled for.” Allegations that a person is being deprived of their Constitutional rights under color of law is precisely what the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice investigates. Anybody who believes that their civil rights have been violated may file a report online or by mail to the Civil Rights Division.
Trustee Nora Nicholson echoes Attorney Subin: “A routine code dispute was on the radar of the Department of Justice.” I leave it to my fellow residents of Croton to read the DoJ letter for themselves (it is posted at the Croton Chronicle) and see whether this was merely a routine code dispute or whether it was a violation of a resident’s freedom of speech.
Trustee Nicholson is no fan of free speech, either: “I believe perhaps naively that the American justice system should be allowed to function as intended with each side making its arguments in a court of law. The situation should have remained a local matter resolved through the appropriate legal channels. Instead it became something very different. Social media amplified the story, spreading it to millions within days.”
The irony—Ms. Nicholson says that Mr. Amicola should have kept his mouth shut about how Ms. Nicholson and her colleagues were trying to shut up Mr. Amicola. I doubt that she would tell Kilmar Abrego Garcia to keep his mouth shut till he got into court. I doubt that she would tell Mahmoud Khalil to keep his mouth shut.
I would not tell Mr. Garcia or Mr. Khalil to keep silent till they got into court. The difference between me and Ms. Nicholson is that I have the same passion for freedom of speech regardless of who is speaking and regardless of the viewpoint expressed.
Trustee Nicholson concludes: “This atmosphere of intimidation is exactly what some in power hope for to silence officials, to weaken trust in the rule of law, and make communities too afraid to enforce their own codes. Sadly this is where we find ourselves in 2025 and we all need to do better.”
Ms. Nicholson spoke those words from the most powerful place in Croton: as a member of the Board of Trustees with a $24 million budget, directing a Village Manager who sends Code Enforcement Officer Snilsberg out to issue court citations for political flag displays, and this is done pursuant to Village Code.
It is not Trustee Nicholson who is being silenced. She literally has a bi-weekly platform broadcast live and available worldwide online.
Two times in a row, Mr. Amicola has been targeted. Two times in a row, Mr. Amicola has had to retain an attorney to defend against the village. Two times in a row, the matter has been dropped prior to judicial review. Both times it was because the village decided to drop the matter.
Village Attorney Subin says that Croton will “make related code amendments so that we can uphold the spirit of fair and consistent code enforcement with an enduring belief in equal justice under law.”
What is “fair” and what constitutes “justice” are subjective concepts. They are also irrelevant to the legal case involving Mr. Amicola. What is relevant is the Constitution and case law from the SecondCircuit and the US Supreme Court. Attorney Subin refuses to even acknowledge the case law distinction between commercial and political speech. Nor does Mayor Pugh, who went to a reputable law school.
This refusal is not an accident: the people on that dais are intelligent and have legal counsel on retainer.
I can only come to the conclusion that this is a case of knowing defiance of the rule of law. That is far more troubling than a single political flag on Grand Street.
On a personal level, what Mayor Pugh and Manager Healy have done to Mr. Snilsberg is inexcusable. If you haven’t done so yet, please look at the video starting at 2:20. According to what Trustee Politi stated (without objection from anyone at the Sept. 10 meeting), at the time Mr. Snilsberg was hired there were conversations among the Trustees about going after Robbins Pharmacy in order to provide an avenue to compel Mr. Amicola to “move his banner to the flagpole. That’s that “fair enforcement” that our attorney was talking about.”
I doubt Mr. Snilsberg was aware of the 2021 meeting between Mr. Amicola, his attorney, the Village Engineer, and the Code Enforcement Officer. At that meeting they discussed the basis for a federal suit on Constitutional grounds. After that meeting, the village dropped the matter.
I doubt Mr. Snilsberg was aware that at the time he was accepting the job, Trustee Politi and her
colleagues were already talking about getting to Mr. Amicola via Robbins. I doubt Mr. Snilsberg thought that if the Amicola matter got publicity (a distinct probability) that Mayor Pugh and Manager Healy would blame “apolitical” village civil servants.
In assigning blame, the Mayor and Village Manager not only failed in a fundamental matter of leadership but they also made Mr. Snilsberg a target for every nutcase with access to the internet. That neither Mayor Pugh nor Manager Healy have taken responsibility is a fact which we as residents of Croton should consider carefully.
In New York, officials are required to swear a “Public Officer Oath of Office” (DoS form 2188). They attest that they will “support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York.” This is a solemn ceremony, often attended by members of the official’s family. It is a serious matter.
Mayor Pugh and Manager Healy placed Thor Snilsberg in an impossible position. In his capacity as a public officer, Mr. Snilsberg was asked to perform an unconstitutional act. That has ethical considerations, but it also has ramifications for him personally. During the past few days it has become a mantra of Mayor Pugh and Manager Healy that the issuance of process to Mr. Amicola was an “apolitical” action taken by unnamed village employees. Of course, we all know they mean Mr. Snilsberg and all the mentally disturbed people on the internet know they mean Mr. Snilsberg.
Based on the statements made by Mayor Pugh, Manager Healy, and Attorney Subin the village is revising the code in anticipation of going after Mr. Amicola for a third time. Perhaps by then our village leaders will have the backbone to not throw the Code Enforcement Officer under the bus.
Whether it is by direct action such as the prosecution of Mr. Amicola or whether it is by indirect pressure such as intimidating people from speaking out for fear of being called anti-Semitic under the recently passed Croton-on-Hudson IHRA definition, freedom of speech is being undermined in Croton.
All of us are silenced when any of us are silenced. Stand up for free speech in Croton.
--Paul Steinberg, Croton-on-Hudson
No comments:
Post a Comment