AMHERST — A two-year effort to deal with a man well known in downtown Amherst for holding handcrafted signs using crude and off-color language to elicit reactions from passers-by reached a new level this month when the Amherst BID asked businesses not to sell materials to the man.
A recent letter from Amherst BID Executive Director Sarah la Cour to businesses described the signs that Phil O’Connell creates as “derogatory and inflammatory.”
“We are asking that businesses not sell this individual any signage materials such as cardboard and writing implements and do not allow him to store signs on your property,” la Cour wrote May 10.
With occasional physical confrontations with pedestrians resulting from his displays, the Amherst Police Department and the BID have spent time talking with O’Connell to reduce the likelihood of confrontations and to keep the commercial district a welcoming place. La Cour said that she is sympathetic to O’Connell’s First Amendment rights and noted the close work the BID is doing with Kasey Nagle, the police department’s community outreach officer.
Although the letter was directed to businesses, O’Connell said he obtained a copy of the communication from three business owners. This prompted him to greet Town Meeting members at the Amherst Regional Middle School Monday evening with a copy of the BID letter, as well as his own memo demanding that elected officials do something on his behalf.
“They are trying to take away my First Amendment rights,” O’Connell said.
In his handwritten letter, O’Connell writes: “It is a federal crime to conspire or take part in a conspiracy to deny a person their constitutional rights! Amherst BID is guilty, the police too. Whom in town hall knew or took part? Investigate now! Transparency now!”
As offensive as some of O’Connell’s signs may be — “Bring back the bitchslap,” “Feminist witches and soyboy bitches, lmfao” being two examples — the law may be on his side.
Bill Newman, director of the Western Regional Office of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said a preliminary view of the BID letter is that it may violate the First Amendment since the BID may be considered a governmental entity, both from the way it is established and the town’s involvement in collecting fees from property owners.
“It is certainly putting its thumb on the scale and interfering significantly, it would seem, with a person exercising his right to free speech,” Newman said.
Less clear, he said, is whether a business decision to turn O’Connell away would run afoul of the state’s public accommodations law. That law states that “all persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.”
The question, Newman said, is whether there can be discrimination against someone based on his political views. That is uncertain.
La Cour declined to comment further when contacted this week.
Town Manager Paul Bockelman noted that the BID’s action would not deprive O’Connell of the ability to continue making signs because he could buy the materials elsewhere.
Police Chief Scott Livingstone said the conversations he has had with the BID have been about where O’Connell can stand and what constitutes free speech as it relates to his signs.
“I have personally had these conversations with Phil as well,” Livingstone said. “I know that Officer Kasey Nagle has conversations with Phil on an almost daily basis and from what I understand, most of it is very productive. To my knowledge they have a respectful dialogue.”
Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.