Silencing Voices: The Cost of Speaking Truth.

The Cost of Dissent

For years, I believed that true belonging in Milford required nothing more than participation. I thought it meant attending gatherings, sharing in our town’s rich history, and engaging with community groups. I was an active member of the Milford Residents Facebook groups. I also joined various town committees. I thought this involvement made me a valued citizen. I soon discovered, though, that I was not a builder. Instead, I acted as a disruptive force. My eventual exclusion from these forums shocked no one who saw the friction. This experience taught me a profound lesson. It showed me the cost of being misunderstood. It also highlighted the challenge of standing up to established power.

My official banishment began with the Milford Residents Group, moderated by Wade Campbell and John Yule. Both hold positions in local government and are part of an insular network that resists accountability. I dared to challenge pervasive falsehoods. I confronted political manipulation and abuses of power. These were perpetuated by elected officials who seemed to have little genuine connection to our community’s needs.

A prime example of this dynamic was the town’s decision about the 100-year-old Fire Department emergency horn. This cherished piece of history was not simply forgotten. It was quietly removed to appease officials. They valued a discreet consensus to appease a small minority. They chose this over a long-standing tradition. They ignored the known will of the people who covet its continued use. I tried to protect this part of Milford’s heritage. My actions led to efforts aimed at silencing me. Insiders, driven by their political agendas, formed a coalition to stifle any dissenting voice.

My “offenses” were straightforward: I advocated for efficiency, embraced inconvenient truths, and exposed waste and mismanagement. The town often favors social pleasantries over factual data and emotional appeals. Because of this, I quickly earned the label of “that person who will argue about anything.” Before long, I was unofficially deemed the town’s “most feared and hated” citizen. This was not due to any malicious intent on my part. It was because of my unwavering commitment to principles over politeness.

The reliance of town officials on these Facebook groups as a primary communication platform for residents raises significant concerns. It affects free speech and fair discourse. While these forums are publicly accessible, they often foster a culture of conformity. Members are encouraged to align with a particular ideology. This environment can create a chilling effect. Dissenting voices fear being silenced, labeled, or banned. This situation can have legal implications for a citizen’s right to engage freely in public discussions. When public officials moderate these spaces, they inadvertently create barriers to honest debate. This moderation can hinder accountability. It makes it difficult to challenge allegations or refute false claims.

Today, individuals in Milford’s public discourse emphasize social harmony. They value emotional consensus over diligent fact-finding. This is also prioritized above the tenets of liberal democratic values. The outcome of their vision—restricting speech and propagating convenient narratives—does not foster prosperity through honesty. Instead, it leads us into a world built on unexamined falsehoods, blind obedience to ignorance, and irrational emotional subjectivism.

Scott Kimball,

About The Author

Scott Kimball Blog

See author's posts