I've had not a few irate people scream at me (over the years), because I wouldn't provide legal advice to people researching their legal questions.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
Nope, I'm taking about members of the city council. I mean you'd think they way people scream at these guys (and gals) that they (the city councils of America) really don't have a clue about what they're doing!
And by their reactions, sometimes, I'm guessing they don't.
Take the case of Noah Petersen, who was arrested for criticizing his mayor and police department.
Seems Mr. Petersen had written letters to the city council because he was upset about something. After not getting a response, he decided to stand in front of his local city council and complain about how things were being done.
During the course of his monologue, Mr. Petersen stated that both the Mayor and the Chief of Police were "fascists"- which really didn't sit well with the Mayor who banged his gavel and, eventually, had Mr. Petersen arrested and removed from chambers.
The problem with all this is that the right to criticize the government is protected under our constitutional republic. Pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the United State Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This single amendment protects the core right of citizens to criticize government, officials, laws, and policies.
The two clauses that are especially important (as they relate to criticizing government or speech, in general) are:
-
Freedom of Speech
Protects verbal and expressive criticism of government actors and policies. Right to Petition the Government
Protects complaints, protests, and demands for change — historically understood as the right to criticize authority without fear of punishment.
The SCOTUS has repeatedly said that criticism of government is at the heart of the First Amendment, not at its edges and has said so in not a few cases, including:
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
The Court held that public officials must tolerate harsh, inaccurate, and even offensive criticism, unless it is knowingly false and malicious.
→ This case exists specifically to protect criticism of government.Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
Speech that “stirs people to anger” or “invites dispute” is still protected.
→ Government cannot silence speech simply because it is upsetting.City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
The Court struck down a city ordinance banning verbal criticism of police officers.
→ The Court said “the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”
Government officials try to get around the right to criticize government constantly, and the courts have been very clear—all such speech is protected. Following are real-world breakdown of the most common methods, what officials claim, and how courts respond.
1. “You’re being disrespectful / negative / offensive”
What officials say: “This meeting must remain respectful.”
What they really mean: Stop criticizing us.
Why it fails: The First Amendment does not protect only polite speech. In fact, criticism is often uncomfortable by nature.
Court response: City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987): The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.
Bottom line: “Disrespect” is not a constitutional category.
2. “You’re off topic”
What officials say: “Please limit comments to agenda items.”
How it’s abused: Supporters are allowed to wander; critics are shut down.
Why it fails: Agenda limits must be evenly applied. Selective enforcement = viewpoint discrimination.
Court response: Courts consistently hold that unequal enforcement of meeting rules violates the First Amendment.
Bottom line: Rules aren’t illegal — biased enforcement is.
3. “You’re causing a disruption”
What officials say: "You’re disrupting the meeting."
What disruption actually means (legally):
-
Physical obstruction
-
Refusing to yield the floor
-
Shouting so proceedings can’t continue
What it does not mean:
-
Saying things officials don’t like
-
Accusing them of corruption
-
Speaking passionately
Court response: Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
Speech that provokes anger is protected.
Bottom line: Offense does not equal disruption.
4. “This is a limited public forum — we can control speech”
What officials say: “Public comment is a limited forum; we can restrict it.”
Why this fails: Limited public forums still require viewpoint neutrality.
Court response: Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995): Viewpoint discrimination is prohibited in all forums.
Bottom line: “Limited forum” is not a magic eraser.
5. “We’re just enforcing decorum”
What officials say: “We’re enforcing decorum rules.”
How courts see it: Decorum rules must be:
-
Narrow
-
Clear
-
Content-neutral
-
Applied equally
Why this fails in practice: “Decorum” is often undefined and used selectively.
Court response: Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973): Vague rules chill speech and are unconstitutional.
Bottom Line: Vague/undefined rules are unenforceable
6. “We’re protecting staff safety”
What officials say: “This speech makes people feel unsafe.”
Why it fails: Emotional discomfort ≠ legal threat.
Court response: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 444 (1969): Only true threats or incitement to imminent violence are unprotected.
Bottom line: Feeling unsafe is not the same as being unsafe.
7. “You violated meeting policy”
What officials say: “Our policy doesn’t allow that kind of speech.”
Why it fails: City policies do not override the U.S. Constitution.
Court response: Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972): Local rules conflicting with constitutional rights are void.
8. “You can criticize us — just not here”
What officials say: “Take that outside.”
Why it fails: If public comment is allowed, criticism must be allowed too.
Court response: City of Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 429 U.S. 167 (1976): Silencing dissent at the only official forum for public input is unconstitutional.
Bottom Line: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
So, what can you do about city council's violating your 1st amendment rights (to criticize them)?
Well, following are some practical, plain-English checklists citizens can use in real time at city council or board meetings to protect their First Amendment rights. They are written so an ordinary person can actually use them while standing at the podium or immediately afterward.
Before You Speak
Is there a public comment period?
→ If yes, it is at least a limited public forum.
Are other people allowed to speak?
→ If yes, the government cannot silence you based on viewpoint.
Are time limits posted or announced?
→ Time limits are legal if applied equally.
While You Are Speaking
Am I speaking on a matter of public concern?
→ Criticism of officials, policies, or spending is fully protected.
Am I following the same rules as others (time, order)?
→ If yes, you are protected even if officials dislike your message.
Am I being interrupted or cut off?
→ Ask yourself why:
-
Actual disruption (shouting, refusing to yield time)?
-
Or because the content is critical or uncomfortable?
If it’s the second one, that's a constitutional red flag.
Common Illegal Justifications (Red Flags)
🚩 “You’re being disrespectful”
🚩 “We don’t allow negative comments”
🚩 “You’re criticizing council members”
🚩 “You’re making people uncomfortable”
🚩 “This isn’t the place for that” (when others are allowed to speak)
None of these are valid legal reasons to stop protected speech.
If You Are Cut Off or Removed
Did others expressing a different viewpoint speak longer or more freely?
→ This suggests viewpoint discrimination.
Was the rule applied only to you?
→ Selective enforcement = unconstitutional.
Was the reason vague or emotional?
→ “Decorum” without definition is a legal weakness.
What to Say (Calm, On-the-Record)
If interrupted, you may calmly say:
“For the record, I am speaking on a matter of public concern and complying with all posted rules.”
Or:
“Please state the specific rule I am violating.”
These statements create a record without escalating conflict.
After the Meeting (If There Was a Violation)
Note the date, time, and exact words used
Save video or request the meeting recording
Identify witnesses
Request meeting minutes and written policies
Ask:
-
Was my speech stopped due to content or viewpoint?
-
Were rules enforced equally?
If yes, this may be a First Amendment violation (that's "may" as in there are no absolutes in law)
The bottom line to all this is if praise is allowed at City Council hearings but criticism is stopped, then the First Amendment has been violated.
Make a note of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment