Last Saturday night, Mayor Menino, Rev. Eugene Rivers, and other Boston activists visibly and amicably removed T-shirts from the shelves of a store in Dorchester. The T-shirts carried the highly publicized logo, "Stop Snitchin'". In the news stories, the owner of the store appeared to be cooperating.

      The owner of the store claims that he has been ordering and selling these T-shirts for more than five years. According to him, his customers wear them to send a message to criminals about "fingering" innocent people as a part of plea bargains.

     These T-shirts hit the news some months ago, during the trial of a man who was accused of being a gang member and shooting a young girl to death. The accused person's mother wore a "Stop Snitchin'" T-shirt into the courtroom. As the Mayor prepared for this weekend's crime sweep, he vowed to eliminate the "Stop Snitchin'" logo from public view, including a website that uses that slogan.

     South Boston Online applauds the Mayor for proceeding with his decision to take the "Stop Snitchin'" slogan off the streets.

     His action compares to taking offensive graffiti off of buildings and sidewalks during a neighborhood cleanup. No matter what anyone claims, the "Stop Snitchin'" slogan was (and is) used to intimidate. And intimidation, especially of witnesses but also on the city streets, is a very serious crime.

     Predictably and tiresomely, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts protested the Mayor's plan to take the offending T-shirts off store shelves. The Boston Globe quoted a statement by the local ACLU Legal Director, which said the T-shirt removal was "a form of official censorship which is fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression". Apparently, in a liberal state like Massachusetts, there aren't many real freedom-of-speech issues, so the ACLU here has too much time on its hands. And has anyone ever figured out how and where lawyers learn to speak like that?

     It is elementary common sense that inflammatory messages can lead to violence and obstruction of justice. It really isn't a freedom-of-speech issue, where the First Amendment would apply.

     Now, basic Civics isn't the most interesting topic, but when you get a chance, take a quick look at the Constitution - any library branch will have one somewhere. The first Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" Seems simple, doesn't it?

     Now turn to the Preamble of the Constitution, which contains the reasons for writing that noble document in the first place. There are six reasons given. Two of them are to " ... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ...". That's also clear. The Constitution was originally intended, in part, to protect us here, on our own home grounds.

      Stated simply, other rights or public benefits may take precedence over freedom of speech.
We'll list some commonly accepted examples:
Can you talk loudly in a library? No, you can't, simply because it bothers other library patrons. Freedom of speech isn't even an issue in an example like this.

      Can you verbally incite people to riot, destroy property, or engage in violent behavior? Of course not. One of our most distinguished Supreme Court Justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes, agreed with the right to freedom of speech, but also pointed out that it does not give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

      Don't you have to stop speaking on cell phones in many places? Yes, you do, or you'll be asked to leave because you are being rude. Freedom of speech doesn't apply.

      Are there limits to what you can say, write, or wear in many public places? There certainly are. The cases where such prohibitions apply are too numerous to list.

      That should suffice to demonstrate that the authorities can take common-sense steps against intimidating speech. Does anyone really believe that the "Stop Snitchin'" T-shirts are just good, clean fun? Or that the persons wearing them are solid citizens whose only intention is to stick up for their First Amendment rights?

      We're a newspaper, and First Amendment rights are more important to us than most others. Even so, here at South Boston Online, we're happy that common sense prevailed over some rather nebulous and wrong-headed freedom-of-speech arguments.