|
|
|
|
|
|
by JuniperMesos
3 days ago
|
|
|
Looks like this is basically what happened - the linked video footage https://x.com/JasonBassler1/status/2081182966030745720 shows the guy being asked to leave the meeting by the cops, he refuses to leave and tells them "drag me out", the cops proceed to drag him out. The video footage doesn't show how disruptive he was being; but I find it reasonable that he was clapping in a way that the the person running the public comment meeting had specifically asked people not to do in the name of expediently getting to as many comments as possible. This is the kind of situation that I think would come up in basically any human society, even some maximally-anarchist society without the institution of police. If you're having a public meeting to decide on some policy, you need someone to be in charge of the procedural rules of that meeting; if someone doesn't like something about the meeting and is doing something that arguably breaks the procedural rules, you need someone to adjudicate this and decide whether or not to compel them to leave. If someone is compelled to leave a meeting, and they resist, you need someone who will physically force them to. |
|
|
You're suggesting that the bar arbitrarily set by a councilmember on what counts as sufficient disruption to hurt expediency* trumps what seems like just clapping and agreement -- one would argue is clearly protected speech per the 1st amendment and I'd argue squarely within the spirit of why we have public comments in the first place?
I think that's a pretty slippery slope and enables projecting power through process, not something we want from our elected officials.
*an aside - why is expediency the goal? if this is a contentious topic, schedule more time so the focus is on receiving public feedback!)