Free Speech
1. "Major John Spring said if the public is given free rein to speak on a regular basis at council meetings, he feels the city might have to step up its security in case any threatening remarks or actions emerge."
Doggone dangerous citizens. Shouldn't the dreadful Kirkwood, Mo., incident from a couple of years ago have alerted the city to step up its security already? Security at public meetings is very important whether the citizens get to speak or not. The speaking issue is a red herring. If there isn't adequate security at council meetings by now, the city has been shamefully remiss.
2. "Spring also said the city might need to consider incorporating some technology into its live telecasts to allow a short delay before the meeting gets broadcast. This would give city officials a chance to bleep out any inappropriate or slanderous comments."
Surely someone will point out to them that censoring the broadcast of comments at the council meeting arguably puts the city in a worse legal position regarding slanderous comments than not censoring them? Because then you're making content-based decisions.
3. "City Clerk Jenny Hayden said one of her concerns involves giving the public
until noon Monday to sign up. She said this could conflict with the city’s requirement to have its agenda posted at least 48 hours in advance. She said if a speaker wants to talk about something on the agenda, that request needs to be publicized in advance."
Nonsense. Put on the agenda as item #20 or whatever, "Public Comments." There. It's on the agenda.
4. “I think the names are irrelevant,” said Alderman Steve Duesterhaus, D-2. “I don’t care who comes to address the council. It’s the content (that is most mportant). If you don’t know what the content is, you don’t know if it’s appropriate or proper, and you leave it up to the chair to have to decide whether it is or not.”
See #2 above. While it may arguably be legal to discriminate against speakers based on the anticipated content of what they are going to say, it's a public relations disaster, and it goes against the fundamental idea of a democracy, which is that citizens need to have the right to be heard by their elected representatives.
Who gets to decide what's "appropriate" or "proper"? This is one of the most ridiculous pieces of stonewalling that the city government has engaged in.
Doggone dangerous citizens. Shouldn't the dreadful Kirkwood, Mo., incident from a couple of years ago have alerted the city to step up its security already? Security at public meetings is very important whether the citizens get to speak or not. The speaking issue is a red herring. If there isn't adequate security at council meetings by now, the city has been shamefully remiss.
2. "Spring also said the city might need to consider incorporating some technology into its live telecasts to allow a short delay before the meeting gets broadcast. This would give city officials a chance to bleep out any inappropriate or slanderous comments."
Surely someone will point out to them that censoring the broadcast of comments at the council meeting arguably puts the city in a worse legal position regarding slanderous comments than not censoring them? Because then you're making content-based decisions.
3. "City Clerk Jenny Hayden said one of her concerns involves giving the public
until noon Monday to sign up. She said this could conflict with the city’s requirement to have its agenda posted at least 48 hours in advance. She said if a speaker wants to talk about something on the agenda, that request needs to be publicized in advance."
Nonsense. Put on the agenda as item #20 or whatever, "Public Comments." There. It's on the agenda.
4. “I think the names are irrelevant,” said Alderman Steve Duesterhaus, D-2. “I don’t care who comes to address the council. It’s the content (that is most mportant). If you don’t know what the content is, you don’t know if it’s appropriate or proper, and you leave it up to the chair to have to decide whether it is or not.”
See #2 above. While it may arguably be legal to discriminate against speakers based on the anticipated content of what they are going to say, it's a public relations disaster, and it goes against the fundamental idea of a democracy, which is that citizens need to have the right to be heard by their elected representatives.
Who gets to decide what's "appropriate" or "proper"? This is one of the most ridiculous pieces of stonewalling that the city government has engaged in.
posted by Allthenewsthatfits at 11:51 AM
5 Comments:
Spot on.
These people must have skipped Civics Class. They've forgotten it's our government, not theirs. That's the reason we have the right of redress (which, to help Mayor Spring, does not mean putting on a second set of clothes).
A Patriot
Speaking of clothes, Mayor Spring is a pretty snappy dresser.
So he's got that going for him...which is nice.
Folks! It's quite simple, totally clean house next election. Throw out the elitist pigs.
It's government of,by,and for the government!Vote these snappy dressers out or it's more of the same!
Post a Comment
<< Home