One International Place, Suite 1400

Boston, MA 02110
(617) 535-7763
Timothy Cornell
Principal
tcornell@cornelldolan.com

The Honorable Martin J. Walsh

Mayor, City of Boston
1 City Hall Square, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02201-2013

November 10, 2017

RE: Proposal for Amicable Settlement for Violations of Free Speech on

Boston Common

Dear Mayor Walsh,

I am retained by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai - the keynote speaker at the Boston

Free Speech Rally held at Boston Common on August 19, 2017 - to seek an
amicable resolution to the apparently widespread violations of speakers rights at
that rally. The City of Bostons actions before, during, and after that rally
demonstrate clear violations of the First Amendments free speech and right to
peaceable assembly guarantees. These infringements give rise to claims arising
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the deprivation of Dr. Ayyadurais constitutional rights,
as well as the rights to a host of others who sought to express their views at that
rally.

Contrary to the characterizations that you and other city officials have
expressed, neither my client nor his colleagues were anywhere close to Nazis,
white supremacists, or racists. Rather, in his talk at the Parkman Bandstand, my
client asserted that Black Lives DO Matter. Dr. Ayyadurai also decried the lack
of academic free speech, so that scientists who expose the lack of safety standards

1
for genetically engineered foods (GMOs), developed by such companies as
Monsanto, are vilified. He ended his talk with a call for Love, Love, Love, surely
a message that deserved respect. Moreover, the diversity of those in the Parkman
Bandstand included people of all races, genders, religious faiths as well as political
backgrounds a diversity which we in Boston have always welcomed and
cherished.

Instead of allowing Dr. Ayyadurai to express that message, the government

entirely blocked it. Leading up to the rally, the day before, you told the media:
The last thing Id like to say to the media: we need you to help us. Dont give
them the cover- the coverage theyre looking for. Then on the day of the rally, the
City created two sets of barricades to prevent the public from hearing the speakers.
The creation of these barricades was never a part of the agreement. The distance
from the speakers to the public was so far, nearly a football field in length, that no
one outside of Area 2 could hear the speakers.

Once the speakers arrived at the Parkman Bandstand, the police prevented
the media from covering the event and prohibited anyone with a camera from
access to rally participants. The police were ordered to stop anyone from entering
the Bandstand area, and prevented all ability to hear what anyone in the
bandstand was saying. The City also constricted network internet connection from
the Parkman Bandstand, preventing the speakers from broadcasting live video via
Twitter, FaceBook or YouTube. And in a clear violation of the Constitutions
Equal Protection Clause, the government imposed no such press restrictions on the
counter-protestors.

The aim of the governments actions was clear. As Commissioner Bill Evans
put it: You know what, we had a job to do, we did a great job . I'm not going to
listen to people who come in here who want to talk about hate. And you know,
what if they didn't get in, thats a good thing, because their message isn't what we
want to hear.

As a result, the public was entirely blocked from access to hear Dr.
Ayyadurai as well as others speech, in clear violation of the First Amendment
rights of the Rallys participants.

2
 Although the Parkman Bandstand is a landmark of freedom of speech, even
that constitutional right may be restricted under some circumstances. However,
even reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech in public
settings can only be justified if the restriction is made without reference to the
content of the regulated speechare narrowly tailored to serve a significant
government interest, andleave open ample alternative channels for
communication of the information. Bl(a)ck Tea Society v. City of Boston, 378 F.3d 8,
12 (1st Cir. 2004), quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791
(1989)(ellipses original). The essence of this forbidden censorship is content
control...Necessarily, then, under the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the
First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people
whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less
favored or more controversial views. And it may not select which issues are worth
discussing or debating in public facilities. Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S.
92, 96 (1972)(ellipses provided).

Here, of course, the Citys restriction was directly aimed at the content of the
regulated speech. Indeed, Commissioner Evans said this was the citys entire goal
in its actions. Further, the City never provided any alternative channel for
communication. This is why, and for good reason, your actions have met with
condemnation by the New England First Amendment Coalition, the American
Civil Liberties Union, and other groups concerned with constitutional rights.

Along with Dr. Ayyadurai, other organizers and participants in the Rally are
committed to seeking legal redress for the damages they sustained from your
actions. But rather than engage in a protracted and costly lawsuit, Dr. Ayyadurai
believes that there is still an opportunity for an amicable resolution.

My clients proposed solution, therefore, is simple, and hardly onerous. We

simply request that you:

(1) Deliver a public apology that you were wrong in mischaracterizing the
approximately 40 people in the Parkman Bandstand as a hate group and as
sympathetic to white supremacy;

3
 (2) Meet with Dr. Ayyadurai, others who were in the Parkman Bandstand, and
any members of the press who wish to attend, to watch the video of the rally
and acknowledge the sincerity of the groups commitment to free speech;
and,
(3) Take steps to prevent such free speech violations in the future.

These are easy steps to take. By contrast, a lawsuit filed recently by Brandon
Novom, seeking an astonishing $100 million in damages, will have to stand on its
own. Mr. Navom was neither an organizer nor a participant in the Free Speech
Rally. Twenty-four hours before the Rally, Mr. Navom stated that he opposed the
rally and attempted to derail and malign the event. When those attempts to stop
the rally failed, he joined the counter-protesters and stood against Dr. Ayyadurai
and his fellow free speech activists. Assuming the City is willing to deal amicably
with Dr. Ayyadurai, Dr. Ayyadurai and other witnesses are willing to assist the City
in that lawsuit.

If you agree to these three measures, Dr. Ayyadurai and the 40-some other
organizers and activists with valid claims for the unlawful abridgment of their rights
will agree not to file a lawsuit against any city official for their actions surrounding
the demonstration.

Boston was the birthplace of the American Revolution, and some of the
greatest defenders of liberty have spoken at the same venue as the Free Speech
Rally. In fact, it was as a celebration of this great tradition that Dr. Ayyadurai and
his co-activists assembled as a diverse group of people at the Boston Common.
Millions of Americans who viewed Dr. Ayyadurais video have learned the truth in
the days after the rally. My client hopes that you and your administration also
embrace that truth, and meet these three requests so we as a community can move
forward to build a stronger and more united Boston. Kindly let me know your
position on Dr. Ayyadurais proposal.

Yours sincerely,
Timothy Cornell
Timothy Cornell