I think its ok to ask the disrupter to leave and if he refuses, just trespass him. I would hold this opinion independently of the contents of the meeting transcripts. From reading this page, the disrupter should probably be charged with trespassing as I didn't get a sense of his willingness to leave the meeting.
He wasn't being disruptive, and councillors can't redefine behaviour like mild clapping as disruptive.
Threatening with trespass shouldn't be an option against someone exercising their rights as a citizen and resident unless directed by a court order. It simply isn't open to the police to lay hands on a citizen for something that isn't an offence.
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.
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.
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!)
Clapping 5 times after the first speaker has finished talking and the next speaker is yet to begin is not "disruptive".
Just about Anything can be considered "disruptive" by that definition. What is next ? Get someone arrested since they made a face or frowned at your speech ? Or sneezed or coughed ? Why even bother with an audience then ?
This is a bad video, it has been trimmed to just show the police confrontation, and not the alleged offence. Ironically I can't find a non-tiktok source for the longer video, this is from 404media TT but not their website.
Lux Claridge claps only 5 claps, and is ejected as his wife is at the podium to take her turn. The linkage makes this clear violation of 1A rights.
Not talking specifically to this case, but if you're loud and disruptive, you can prevent others from exercising their free speech. The meetings do need some rules.
Comments
I think its ok to ask the disrupter to leave and if he refuses, just trespass him. I would hold this opinion independently of the contents of the meeting transcripts. From reading this page, the disrupter should probably be charged with trespassing as I didn't get a sense of his willingness to leave the meeting.
He wasn't being disruptive, and councillors can't redefine behaviour like mild clapping as disruptive.
Threatening with trespass shouldn't be an option against someone exercising their rights as a citizen and resident unless directed by a court order. It simply isn't open to the police to lay hands on a citizen for something that isn't an offence.
You should really watch the video.
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!)
Clapping 5 times after the first speaker has finished talking and the next speaker is yet to begin is not "disruptive".
Just about Anything can be considered "disruptive" by that definition. What is next ? Get someone arrested since they made a face or frowned at your speech ? Or sneezed or coughed ? Why even bother with an audience then ?
This is a bad video, it has been trimmed to just show the police confrontation, and not the alleged offence. Ironically I can't find a non-tiktok source for the longer video, this is from 404media TT but not their website.
Lux Claridge claps only 5 claps, and is ejected as his wife is at the podium to take her turn. The linkage makes this clear violation of 1A rights.
https://www.tiktok.com/@404.media/video/7667381236557483278
Open meeting laws say people are welcome to be there.
Constitution protects polite free speech, unambiguously.
Not talking specifically to this case, but if you're loud and disruptive, you can prevent others from exercising their free speech. The meetings do need some rules.