What the First Amendment actually covers here
The department’s first cut
Hedberg, 2300010973: sidewalk sign at Pond and Clapboardtree. No authority to stop it. First Amendment. Go civil.
What the flyers actually said
- Crash photo: two cars and a bicycle.
- “Distracted Driving Kills.”
- “Anne McInnis Killed 6-year old Eddie.”
- Newspaper clips.
- QR to a CBS story that already named her.
- Halloween child-safety flyers (later pulled off the town warrant board).
No stable public archive of every pole photo.
Massachusetts law that binds 258E
O’Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415 (2012)
“Fear” in c. 258E means fear of physical harm or physical damage to property — not embarrassment. Civil harassment reaches true threats and fighting words, not protected speech. Unfavorable publicity is not a true threat.
Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58 (2014)
Same limiter.
Appeals Court follow-on (A.R. v. L.C. and cases citing O’Brien)
A promise of reputational harm is not a 258E true threat.
Shak v. Shak, 484 Mass. 658 (2020)
A blanket “do not disparage on social media” order is an unconstitutional prior restraint. Mass. 258E guidelines tell judges not to ban all internet use. A no-name term on a live order can still be specific enough to enforce. A vague “stop talking about the trial” term is Shak.
True threats
Counterman v. Colorado (2023): the State must prove the speaker at least consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the words would be taken as a threat of violence. Hyperbole and public anger are not enough.
Sheehy’s late “world burn” / “sole purpose distress” page is intent-to-upset, not a threat of violence. Bradl’s fuller hallway quote is grief. Distress is not Counterman.
The pole statutes they did not use
Westwood General Bylaws, Article III (Signs)
No posters, signs, or pamphlets on a street, sidewalk, or Town way without a Select Board permit.
Town political-sign rules
No signs on utility poles, fences, trees, sidewalks, or Town property.
G.L. c. 266 § 126
Affixing words to a pole or structure that is public or someone else’s, without written consent — fine $10 to $100, plus cost of removal. The posting is a public nuisance. Any person may take it down.
That statute matches neighbors pulling 70–100 flyers. It is a fine, not 13B, not 43A, not twenty-one 258E counts.
How the limits hit the remaining charges
258E § 9
Violate a specific term of a signed harassment-prevention order after notice. It is not “the family is upset.” Each count needs: which order, which term, which posting, proof he posted it.
Aylward, January 19, 2024: “I reviewed the McInnis vs. Thomson HPO orders and determined that nothing posted violated the order.” May 2023 orders were dropped by agreement. QR-to-CBS — a story that already named her — was a theory in openings. A no-name term on a live order can still be specific enough to enforce. A dropped order, or a QR code to CBS, is not that term. Unfavorable publicity is not a true threat under O’Brien.
Order PDFs are not on the public internet. Full order file: Harassment-prevention orders.
268 § 13B
The homicide case ended with a November 2022 acquittal. Interference needs a live proceeding. Retaliation is the remaining theory. Hedberg already called the sign speech. Courthouse staff: the Dedham sign was there before 8 a.m., before the family arrived.
Friday took some counts off 2654CR000599. Watchers have not mapped which of the dead counts were 13B.
Full intimidation statute: Witness intimidation.
265 § 43A
Willful, malicious pattern of conduct aimed at a specific person that seriously alarms them. Aylward, June 8, 2024: Anne “not aware of the fliers”; Bill “not sure Rob knows who he is”; flyers outside the stay-away. Then two 43A counts citing Sheehy’s late “world burn” page.
Sheehy’s “sole purpose distress” page is intent-to-upset, not a threat of violence. Bradl’s fuller hallway quote is grief. Distress is not Counterman.
Counts 1 and 4 on 2654CR000599 remain. There is no public map of those two counts to a statute. The inventory is on Charges.