A recent session of the Toms River Town Council has sparked a serious debate regarding the intersection of municipal finance and the First Amendment. When the council moved to withhold payment for township advertising from a specific media outlet (Shore News Network) based on “unfavorable” reporting, they stepped into a legal minefield.
You can listen to the Mayor and Township Attorney warn the council members that this is core First-Amendment based retailiation — which is illegal both right before AND during the vote to withhold payments for advertising in the Shore News Network over what Councilmembers call “false” and “slanderous” news coverage.
A First Amendment Standoff: The Council Debate
During the meeting, Mayor Dan Rodrick issued a stark warning regarding the township’s advertising obligations to three local media outlets. He cautioned that withholding payment for services already rendered—specifically as retaliation for unfavorable reporting—would trigger significant legal consequences:
“If you decide that you’re not going to pay for advertising that we’ve already run because you don’t like a story someone wrote, that is a First Amendment violation and a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen.”
Councilmember Tom Nivison challenged this stance, arguing that the township shouldn’t fund outlets he believes are spreading misinformation:
“Then stop printing the lies… We are not going to pay for something when someone is slandering us personally.”
When the Township Attorney intervened to warn against an outright retaliation lawsuit, Nivison questioned the scope of free speech, asking, “You’re allowed to lie and slander people? That’s the First Amendment?”