It is illegal to criticize government in parts of Arizona

[Lutherf]

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-wor...-wingo-mayor-skip-hall-first-amendment-rights

SURPRISE, Ariz. (TND) — An Arizona woman was arrested and cited for trespassing last week after attempting to voice concerns about an official at a city council meeting.

Massie has, based on reports, since been charged with felony resisting arrest.

https://www.12news.com/article/news...eting/75-b7eabe5e-dc1e-4f56-b996-1a8649818063

The Surprise Police Department said Massie was cited for trespassing, then released, and noted that long-form charges would be submitted for resisting arrest and obstructing governmental operations.

This is how democracy works in America these days. If you criticize government you will be subjected to the most onerous charges that government can think of to bring against you. Resistance to the will of government MUST be stopped by whatever means necessary or we can no longer have a democracy!!!

 

[Ginger Ale]

Seems a bit harsh. Sometimes the police go overboard.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

LOL...she admitted she broke the rules she agreed to by saying the rules should be changed.

Free speech is not an absolute. You don't get to disrupt (FIRE!) and then claim "free speech".

 

[The Mark]

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-wor...-wingo-mayor-skip-hall-first-amendment-rights


Massie has, based on reports, since been charged with felony resisting arrest.

https://www.12news.com/article/news...eting/75-b7eabe5e-dc1e-4f56-b996-1a8649818063


This is how democracy works in America these days. If you criticize government you will be subjected to the most onerous charges that government can think of to bring against you. Resistance to the will of government MUST be stopped by whatever means necessary or we can no longer have a democracy!!!

I suspect this kind of thing happens all too often at the local level - especially when the leadership and enforcement are friends and/or family...or the same person.

Edit: But I disagree that this is how democracy works in America.

This is a single example, not a trend. It's something that should be addressed, as I expect it will be, in court.
That rule is probably unconstitutional.

 

[Mr Person]

As always with @Lutherf, the title is a lie.

The one link that actually works indicates there is a form people have to sign to agree to certain terms if they want public speaking time during that city council's session. You have to indicate what you intend to talk about; agenda item or not, etc. Those rules include using that particular session to lodge specific complaints against officials.

Free speech or disorderly conduct? Surprise woman arrested at city council meeting

The woman was interrupted by the mayor who said meeting rules state public comment cannot be used to lodge complaints against a city employee. The woman disagreed.

www.12news.com

This woman ignored that, deciding to make a point about 'free speech' by spending her time lodging complaints about a specific city attorney, directly contradicting the rules she had agreed to. They did what they did. So what we have here is a test case about one particular city and limitation on contents of comments at specific meetings open for public comment.

Would it be a good thing if anyone could show up and say whatever they want for as long as they want? At any rate, whatever you think the answer is and whatever it ends up being, Lutherf's claim that it is illegal to criticize the government in AZ is, you guessed it, yet another big fat LIE.

Anyway, this is the form: https://surpriseaz-services.app.transform.civicplus.com/forms/24865

This is how democracy works in America these days. If you criticize government you will be subjected to the most onerous charges that government can think of to bring against you. Resistance to the will of government MUST be stopped by whatever means necessary or we can no longer have a democracy!!!

Have you considered not hyperventilating in literally every post?

 

[PoliSciPulse]

We got two things, one which is arguably a freedom of speech issue, and one that is basically a citizen misbehaving, but it follows from the first one.

The potential freedom of speech issue is trespassing. More information is required to know what she did. For instance, was she a cantankerous person who was asked to yield to the next speaker, next point of order, etc., but refused? Etc. Trespassing is the potential freedom of speech issue because I can see how that can be abused.

The issues off a citizen misbehaving is the resisting arrest and obstructing governmental operations charges.so, security has been called after she's refused to leave after being asked (hence, trespassing) for whatever specific reason). So, the police were evidently called. This is where it shifts from a freedom of speech issue to a citizen misbehaving. To avoid the long-form charges, all Massie has to do is … leave. Let the police put the handcuffs on her and leave. But the charges indicated she made a spectacle of herself.

In her defense, if trespassing doesn't happen, then the extra charges don't happen. So the issue is … what exactly was she doing? Based on the article, a) this was the wrong place to lodge a complaint, and b) she made a spectacle of herself. So, the question would be whether the trespassing charge is deserved -- it all depends on what the usual procedure is for someone breaking rules at a committee meeting.

 

[noonereal]

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-wor...-wingo-mayor-skip-hall-first-amendment-rights


Massie has, based on reports, since been charged with felony resisting arrest.

https://www.12news.com/article/news...eting/75-b7eabe5e-dc1e-4f56-b996-1a8649818063


This is how democracy works in America these days. If you criticize government you will be subjected to the most onerous charges that government can think of to bring against you. Resistance to the will of government MUST be stopped by whatever means necessary or we can no longer have a democracy!!!

If she was trespassing, what is your post babbling about?

 

[noonereal]

We got two things, one which is arguably a freedom of speech issue, and one that is basically a citizen misbehaving, but it follows from the first one.

The potential freedom of speech issue is trespassing. More information is required to know what she did. For instance, was she a cantankerous person who was asked to yield to the next speaker, next point of order, etc., but refused? Etc. Trespassing is the potential freedom of speech issue because I can see how that can be abused.

The issues off a citizen misbehaving is the resisting arrest and obstructing governmental operations charges.so, security has been called after she's refused to leave after being asked (hence, trespassing) for whatever specific reason). So, the police were evidently called. This is where it shifts from a freedom of speech issue to a citizen misbehaving. To avoid the long-form charges, all Massie has to do is … leave. Let the police put the handcuffs on her and leave. But the charges indicated she made a spectacle of herself.

In her defense, if trespassing doesn't happen, then the extra charges don't happen. So the issue is … what exactly was she doing? Based on the article, a) this was the wrong place to lodge a complaint, and b) she made a spectacle of herself. So, the question would be whether the trespassing charge is deserved -- it all depends on what the usual procedure is for someone breaking rules at a committee meeting.

She was only arrested for trespassing. Understand? She received a further charge of resisting arresting arrest.

None of this has to do with free speach.

That cry is political misdirection .

 

[PoliSciPulse]

She was only arrested for trespassing. Understand? She received a further charge of resisting arresting arrest.

None of this has to do with free speach.

That cry is political misdirection .

Hi Noonereal. I think you misunderstood the intent of my post -- I'm not defending her.

 

[Lutherf]

As always with @Lutherf, the title is a lie.

The one link that actually works indicates there is a form people have to sign to agree to certain terms if they want public speaking time during that city council's session. You have to indicate what you intend to talk about; agenda item or not, etc. Those rules include using that particular session to lodge specific complaints against officials.

Free speech or disorderly conduct? Surprise woman arrested at city council meeting

The woman was interrupted by the mayor who said meeting rules state public comment cannot be used to lodge complaints against a city employee. The woman disagreed.

www.12news.com

This woman ignored that, deciding to make a point about 'free speech.' They did what they did. So what we have here is a test case about one particular city and limitation on contents of comments at specific meetings open for public comment.

Would it be a good thing if anyone could show up and say whatever they want for as long as they want?

Anyway, this is the form: https://surpriseaz-services.app.transform.civicplus.com/forms/24865




Have you considered not hyperventilating in literally every post?

With all due respect, if it's illegal to criticize elected officials then doesn't that limitation violate the 1st Amendment?

Here's a video of her egregious, disruptive and illegal behavior.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

5:50 is resisting arrest. 5:00 she doubled down on what they said wasn't allowed. I see nothing wrong what happened.

EDIT: also wearing a shirt saying cyberbullying the government when she's attempting to … bully the government. Sometimes the shirt fits the misdemeanor. Just sayin'.

 

[brianpatrick]

As I understand it she was specifically intending to disrupt an official government proceeding by violating rules she had previously agreed to. She was arrested for continuing to violate the rules after she had been politely warned.

If I went to a Christian school and started giving an uninvited speech about how all these kids parents were perverting the words of Christ by calling themselves Christians and refused to stop when asked to, I’d be expect to be eventually arrested whether of not my allegations were true.

 

[brianpatrick]

With all due respect, if it's illegal to criticize elected officials then doesn't that limitation violate the 1st Amendment?

Here's a video of her egregious, disruptive and illegal behavior.

That’s a part of the video. It’s not illegal to say what she said, it’s illegal to do so at that particular meeting at that particular time. She could have stood outside and peacefully protested all she wanted.

 

[ElChupacabra]

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-wor...-wingo-mayor-skip-hall-first-amendment-rights


Massie has, based on reports, since been charged with felony resisting arrest.

https://www.12news.com/article/news...eting/75-b7eabe5e-dc1e-4f56-b996-1a8649818063


This is how democracy works in America these days. If you criticize government you will be subjected to the most onerous charges that government can think of to bring against you. Resistance to the will of government MUST be stopped by whatever means necessary or we can no longer have a democracy!!!

So there were speaking rules for the event and she violated them and got tossed accordingly. Do you think she was correct in violating the meeting rules?

 

[noonereal]

Hi Noonereal. I think you misunderstood the intent of my post -- I'm not defending her.

Sorry. I did understand. My post was frustration with those who could not keep issues in their proper lane.

I piggy backed your post an was speaking to the class.

I guess i just was not clear enough.

 

[Lutherf]

She was only arrested for trespassing. Understand? She received a further charge of resisting arresting arrest.

None of this has to do with free speach.

That cry is political misdirection .

The whole episode has to do with free speech and specifically with the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. The actions of the mayor were a DIRECT violation of the 1st Amendment, were taken for PURELY political reasons and your support of his actions and the actions of the police suggest that you have no regard whatsoever for the Constitutionally protected rights of the citizens. For people like you it's "government MUST have all the power and people shall have none unless expressly permitted by government and subject to limitations, arbitrary as they may be, imposed by government at any time or place of their choosing."

 

[Lutherf]

That’s a part of the video. It’s not illegal to say what she said, it’s illegal to do so at that particular meeting at that particular time. She could have stood outside and peacefully protested all she wanted.

She interrupted nothing and was called during the "call to the public" section of the session.

 

[noonereal]

The whole episode has to do with free speech and specifically with the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Trespassing has zero to do with this nonsense you babble about.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

With all due respect, if it's illegal to criticize elected officials then doesn't that limitation violate the 1st Amendment?

Here's a video of her egregious, disruptive and illegal behavior.

It is not illegal for me to criticize you but if I do so in your living room without permission, there may be other laws being broken.

 

[Mr Person]

With all due respect, if it's illegal to criticize elected officials then doesn't that limitation violate the 1st Amendment?

Here's a video of her egregious, disruptive and illegal behavior.

It's not illegal in general to do. However, if you violate the rules you agree to when you submit the form at speaking at that one kind of particular meeting when you speak, they can tell you to leave, and if you don't it becomes trespass.

This is sort of an odd mix between time and place restrictions and content-based restrictions. The government has a lot more leeway with the former. I don't think this is as clear cut as you do. She could speak publicly about it. She could distribute pamphlets. She could submit complaints. What she couldn't do according to the rules is use that specific time to do it because again, it's not some broadly illegal thing to criticize officials or the government. It's rules about the kind of things people may and may not comment upon if they seek to speak at that specific kind of meeting.

And surely, government may use reasonable restrictions on both the time and place, and the content, of speech in order to function. For example, you can legitimately wear a jacket that says "**** the war" in a courthouse (an old case from the Vietnam era), but you can't go into a courtroom and disrupt a trial by shouting about some aggrievement you have.

My rough guess is that this will ultimately be treated much more like someone disrupting a trial. If a meeting is for a specific purpose and is a required part of a government function, it seems reasonable that government can restrict the topics that speakers may address at that meeting.

 

[Lutherf]

It is not illegal for me to criticize you but if I do so in your living room without permission, there may be other laws being broken.

I see. Well, this woman was at a public meeting and spoke, when called, during the "call to the public" portion of the meeting. She interrupted nobody and spoke when allowed to speak. Her "violation" was that she spoke about the salary of a government official. That topic sure seems to me to fall presst ****ing squarely in the "seek redress of grievances" part of the 1st Amendment. Then again, left wingers HATE the Constitution so it's no surprise that you support the action taken against her.

 

[Lutherf]

It's not illegal in general to do. However, if you violate the rules you agree to when you submit the form at speaking at that one kind of particular meeting when you speak, they can tell you to leave, and if you don't it becomes trespass.

This is sort of an odd mix between time and place restrictions and content-based restrictions. The government has a lot more leeway with the former. I don't think this is as clear cut as you do. She could speak publicly about it. She could distribute pamphlets. She could submit complaints. What she couldn't do according to the rules is use that specific time to do it because again, it's not some broadly illegal thing to criticize officials or the government. It's rules about the kind of things people may and may not comment upon if they seek to speak at that specific kind of meeting.

And surely, government may use reasonable restrictions on both the time and place, and the content, of speech in order to function. For example, you can legitimately wear a jacket that says "**** the war" in a courthouse (an old case from the Vietnam era), but you can't go into a courtroom and disrupt a trial by shouting about some aggrievement you have.

My rough guess is that this will ultimately be treated much more like someone disrupting a trial. If a meeting is for a specific purpose and is a required part of a government function, it seems reasonable that government can restrict the topics that speakers may address at that meeting.

Yeah. I agree. She'll probably get 25 years for obstruction of official proceedings.

 

[Anagram]

With all due respect, if it's illegal to criticize elected officials then doesn't that limitation violate the 1st Amendment?

Here's a video of her egregious, disruptive and illegal behavior.

It sounds to me like it is not illegal to criticize elected officials, but it is against the rules of that proceeding to specifically criticize officials during council meetings and that instead those complaints should be lodged with the city manager. The SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld that it is legal to limit the time, place, and manner of speech using reasonable rules that are content neutral.

Now if you wanted to debate whether or not the restriction is a reasonable time/place/manner restriction, this would be a different thread, but instead it seems like you made the thread about something that was just factually untrue, that it was illegal to criticize the government or elected official.

 

[Mycroft]

With all due respect, if it's illegal to criticize elected officials then doesn't that limitation violate the 1st Amendment?

Here's a video of her egregious, disruptive and illegal behavior.

After watching the video, this is my take:

It appears she did violate the agreement she signed before she started speaking. I didn't see any tresspass. She did resist removal from the chamber and, I presume, afterward resisted arrest.

Other than that, she was being a dick.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

More information is required to know what she did.

The articles, especially the channel 12 article, makes it clear what she did, she started accusing individual govt officials of illegal actions, which is a path to disruption of a meeting. She knew this was not allowed when she signed the agreement prior to speaking. Courts have already found that these meetings have limited speech allowances, her argument has already been defeated.