Good morning and welcome to Broad + Liberty's Weekly Reads.

Subscribe to our daily email list and get the best of Broad + Liberty delivered straight to your inbox.

1. Kilkenny versus Upper Darby

By Bradley Vasoli
 

"What you’re not going to do is silence us,” Olivia Taylor warned the Upper Darby officials perched two dozen feet in front of her. “We got at least ten of us right here to take your sorry asses to court! See you there!”

The east end township resident chastised councilpersons who would soon vote, with Democratic Mayor Ed Brown’s support, to limit public comment during legislative hearings. With the new restrictions in place, councilpersons would then proceed to impose a new one-percent earned income tax (EIT).

Over a dozen of Taylor’s fellow citizens rose during the September 4 meeting’s early forum period to echo her outrage. Across from the Council chamber’s center podium where they stood sat Brown and most of the eleven-member Council. Also at the dais was a man who never ran for election in Upper Darby but still regularly occupies the very middle seat, as if to suggest his peculiar sway over the Philadelphia border town: Solicitor Sean Kilkenny.

Why It Matters.  The lawsuit Taylor predicted is getting filed Monday by Drexel Hill resident John DeMasi and six other plaintiffs who complain the township violated state and federal law as well as the municipality’s Home Rule Charter (HRC) when adopting the new speech restrictions and the EIT.

The case is only the latest in a series of collisions between Kilkenny and the governing document the township hired him to defend.

DeMasi and his co-plaintiffs point out not only that the HRC states everyone must be heard but that the federal and state constitutions say the same. The Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees citizens the “right… to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.” The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment also protects that right. 

Quotable. “This is B.S.,” Chris Fabre said. “You’re stifling free speech.” The Beverly Hills resident and grandfather returned to his seat, but not before quoting children’s author Laurie Halse Anderson thus: “Censorship is the child of fear, the father of ignorance and the desperate weapon of fascists everywhere.”

Continue reading part one and part two of this important story.

2. From the Editors: We don’t endorse candidates, and neither should any media outlet.

From the Editors
 

Political endorsements have always been at odds with the supposed objectivity of media organizations.
Although most newspapers proclaim a strict separation between news decisions and editorial judgements — and many people in those organizations try their best to uphold that wall of separation — it beggars belief to say that there is no connection between the opinions of the editors on one page and the way news is presented on the next. Left-wing newspapers endorse Democrats, right-wing papers endorse Republicans. When that means backing an unqualified candidate, it diminishes the credibility of the entire organization.

Why It Matters. By endorsing candidates — and especially by routinely endorsing candidates of the same party — editorial boards diminish their organizations’ appearance of neutrality and impartiality. It’s a disservice to the reader as well as to those reporters who are trying to do their jobs the right way.

Broad + Liberty is, like the Inquirer’s owners, a non-profit organization. As such, we do not endorse candidates for any office. But even if we were not prevented from doing so by the tax laws, we would still not endorse. Why? Because the public has lost enough trust in the media already. We publish opinion pieces, as the Inquirer and others do, but we also seek to report the news without bias. For impartiality to be believed, it must be seen. Endorsements show people the opposite.

Continue Reading

3. Lightning Round

• Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta sued by Drexel University for unpaid tuition, late fees

• Guy Ciarrocchi: If the Veep debate was a boxing match, the ref would’ve stopped it

• Andy Bloom: Vance shows Trump how it’s done

• Thom Nickels: A stand-out production at the Philly Fringe Festival

• Beth Ann Rosica: The case against Kamala — Part Four

• From the Editors: An open letter to Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer

• Dave McCormick: Pennsylvania students cannot wait any longer for school choice

4. What we're reading

"Democracy, unlike other forms of government, has to win the people’s trust in order to survive.” So writes Armin Rosen in Tablet in a thoughtful article on the decline of safety, security, and trust in America’s voting systems. After the 2000 election, a bipartisan commission recommended ways to improve things. Instead, we’ve done the opposite, and with each passing election, a growing share of voters think the results are not to be trusted. This is a problem that state governments have created. Will they fix it before it's too late?