It is illegal to criticize government in parts of Arizona

[brianpatrick]

Is she selling those t-shirts? The reason I ask is a buddy of mine decided he was going to make political slogan t-shirts, and merch, and then decided the best way to publicize those t-shirts for sale on his website was to go to council meetings where the public was aloud to speak and make an ass of himself, hoping he would make the news while wearing one.

He did end up getting removed from a couple meetings and I think he had to pay a couple citations. The shit part is when he made the local news they blurred out the web address on his shirt.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

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.

A single extreme example at an extremely low local level.

The actual threat to our freedom of speech is things like the Patriot Act, qualified immunity for police, and treating money as speech.

But conservatives seem more interested in things like private companies moderating their own websites or people being "canceled". Or pretending whatever this is in indicative of the fall of Western democracy.

 

[The Mark]

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.

Hmm, I suppose that might make sense. While I dislike the restriction, it probably would be the case that if any speech were allowed, they'd keep getting disrupted by people who wanted to mess with them, and wouldn't be able to get anything done.
Although I would think the time limit would, well, limit that?

 

[notquiteright]

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.

Oh, what a load of MAGA crap....
In very Red Oklahoma many very conservative town councils have rules for the public to speak. No new business it has to be on the printed agenda so a citizen can't just walk in with a new topic. (a Council person can't either). The council sets rules on what can be discussed and what can't. Most meetings are not open to any topic- that would be a weeklong meeting. There is a topic for the meeting. There are rules to follow when addressing the council. The council has great discretion in deciding if the citizen is in order. I know this because I attended quite a few town council/ school board meetings in ultra conservative SW Oklahoma (absolutely no 'left winger' local gubmints here)....
Once again for the slow whiners- very conservative councils run their meetings in ways this lady would have been tossed out of. I know MAGA has little positive to talk about so they cherry pick incidents. But simple rule of life most should learn in kindergarten- learn the rules and beat then at their own game- but bluff and bluster gets you pushed into the mud...

 

[Peter]

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 watched a video about this and it was shocking.
All the woman did was air complaints at a public meeting as she has a right to do and she was arrested.

The entire panel at that meeting should be fired as none of them objected to the illegal arrest.

I don't even know what she was complaining about but the point is she has every right to have a voice even if I don't agree with her.

 

[Peter]

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.

She was simply voicing complaints she had.
She only resisted being unlawfully arrested and the resistance was mild at worst.

Lastly, being a dick is not against the law as if it was pretty much all teenagers would be in prison.

 

[Lutherf]

As

She was simply voicing complaints she had.
She only resisted being unlawfully arrested and the resistance was mild at worst.

Lastly, being a dick is not against the law as if it was pretty much all teenagers would be in prison.

Than you for understanding. That doesn't happen much!

 

[Lutherf]

Oh, what a load of MAGA crap....
In very Red Oklahoma many very conservative town councils have rules for the public to speak. No new business it has to be on the printed agenda so a citizen can't just walk in with a new topic. (a Council person can't either). The council sets rules on what can be discussed and what can't. Most meetings are not open to any topic- that would be a weeklong meeting. There is a topic for the meeting. There are rules to follow when addressing the council. The council has great discretion in deciding if the citizen is in order. I know this because I attended quite a few town council/ school board meetings in ultra conservative SW Oklahoma (absolutely no 'left winger' local gubmints here)....
Once again for the slow whiners- very conservative councils run their meetings in ways this lady would have been tossed out of. I know MAGA has little positive to talk about so they cherry pick incidents. But simple rule of life most should learn in kindergarten- learn the rules and beat then at their own game- but bluff and bluster gets you pushed into the mud...

Massie was contesting the pay of the city attorney and his ability to give himself a raise based on a wholly subjective measure. Her complaint was political, not personal and kicking her out of the PUBLIC portion of the meeting was an egregious violation of her 1st Amendment right.

 

[Peter]

As

Than you for understanding. That doesn't happen much!

If they set up a public meeting and have public speakers they need to let them speak.

The only thing that could possibly hamper proceedings is if someone goes on a libellous rant and even that should be dealt with in court at a later date.
She did nothing illegal or improper as far as I saw and having her dragged out was assault.

I may not agree with someone but they have a right to speak.

 

[Peter]

Massie was contesting the pay of the city attorney and his ability to give himself a raise based on a wholly subjective measure. Her complaint was political, not personal and kicking her out of the PUBLIC portion of the meeting was an egregious violation of her 1st Amendment right.

Nobody should be able to decide if they gt a raise and a public official doing so is madness.

 

[Mycroft]

She was simply voicing complaints she had.

She violated the agreement she made. When she was politely warned, she started being a dick.

She only resisted being unlawfully arrested and the resistance was mild at worst.

She wasn't being unlawfully removed from the chamber.

Lastly, being a dick is not against the law as if it was pretty much all teenagers would be in prison.

LOL!!

I don't think I said it was against the law.

 

[Peter]

She violated the agreement she made. When she was politely warned, she started being a dick.


She wasn't being unlawfully removed from the chamber.


LOL!!

I don't think I said it was against the law.

But hey...you got any more strawmen to add to your lack of comprehension while viewing videos?

It's a public meeting, she can say what she likes.
She wasn't being lawfully removed unless you think free speech is unlawful.

I've offered no strawmen you just suck at arguing your case and always go into attack mode and then run away.

 

[Lutherf]

She violated the agreement she made. When she was politely warned, she started being a dick.


She wasn't being unlawfully removed from the chamber.


LOL!!

I don't think I said it was against the law.

But hey...you got any more strawmen to add to your lack of comprehension while viewing videos?

She was criticizing the pay and the pay policy. She was also providing justification for her criticism. At no point did she make the issue personal. By that standard she COMPLETELY followed the rules and her removal sure seems to be completely unjustified. I believe that the city is now being sued as we can all allow a judge to decide how "unlawful" her actions were.

 

[Peter]

She was criticizing the pay and the pay policy. She was also providing justification for her criticism. At no point did she make the issue personal. By that standard she COMPLETELY followed the rules and her removal sure seems to be completely unjustified. I believe that the city is now being sued as we can all allow a judge to decide how "unlawful" her actions were.

If what she said was against the rules then any criticism is against the rules and at that point what's the point of the meeting but a pointless circle jerk?

 

[Binary_Digit]

I watched a video about this and it was shocking.
All the woman did was air complaints at a public meeting as she has a right to do and she was arrested.

The entire panel at that meeting should be fired as none of them objected to the illegal arrest.

I don't even know what she was complaining about but the point is she has every right to have a voice even if I don't agree with her.

Did you read the thread before posting that? It really helps, ya know, since multiple people have already addressed your entire position.

 

[notquiteright]

Massie was contesting the pay of the city attorney and his ability to give himself a raise based on a wholly subjective measure. Her complaint was political, not personal and kicking her out of the PUBLIC portion of the meeting was an egregious violation of her 1st Amendment right.

Were there rules to the session???
I'll wager a shiny MAGA poop pellet there is a procedure to protest that issue. Course wearing a 'proud to throw a shoe in 'the machine' ' shirt doesn't create a warm fuzzy to bend the rules for someone....
One more time- were there rules she agreed to before bringing up the pay issue????
want to add- public portion doesn't mean free for all

 

[Lutherf]

Were there rules to the session???
I'll wager a shiny MAGA poop pellet there is a procedure to protest that issue. Course wearing a 'proud to throw a shoe in 'the machine' ' shirt doesn't create a warm fuzzy to bend the rules for someone....
One more time- were there rules she agreed to before bringing up the pay issue????
want to add- public portion doesn't mean free for all

Here is the form.

What she's being accused of is violating the following rule -

Oral communications during the City Council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the City or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by name or by any other reference that tends to identify him/her. Any such charges or complaints should be submitted during normal business hours to the City Manager for appropriate action.

Massie was not complaining about the person. She was complaining about policy regarding the pay of that person and offered, as substantiation for her complaint, evidence of why her complain was valid. In no way, shape or form was her complaint a personal one.

 

[Luce]

1. Agrees to rules.
2 Breaks rules.
3. Is asked to leave.
4. Refuses.
5. Is dinged for trespassing.

SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH!

 

[Nickyjo]

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."

Don’t understand. Didn’t she say something about having the right under the First Amendment to stand there and hurl insults at the panel or chair? Obviously such stuff would normally be permitted if he were out in the street saying that.

I have made such statements critical of a city council member, but stayed within the guidelines for public comment. If she violated the rules she agreed to, wasn’t panel within its authority to have her removed if she refused to stop?

 

[Nickyjo]

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

That would’ve been what Trump would want if someone disrupted his meeting. Either that or have his supporters punch her.

But I’m game: what would you have done if faced with her clearly violating the rules in place?

 

[notquiteright]

Here is the form.

What she's being accused of is violating the following rule -

Massie was not complaining about the person. She was complaining about policy regarding the pay of that person and offered, as substantiation for her complaint, evidence of why her complain was valid. In no way, shape or form was her complaint a personal one.

LOL, swing and a miss. I'll wager another shiny MAGA poop pellet you haven't attended many city council meetings. Try and dance around this but she was complaining about the city attorney....
The Temple or Walters city council would have shut her down as well and none of them have a democrat bumper sticker...

 

[Lutherf]

Don’t understand. Didn’t she say something about having the right under the First Amendment to stand there and hurl insults at the panel or chair? Obviously such stuff would normally be permitted if he were out in the street saying that.

I have made such statements critical of a city council member, but stayed within the guidelines for public comment. If she violated the rules she agreed to, wasn’t panel within its authority to have her removed if she refused to stop?

So, in your opinion, because she said she could hurl insults at the panel she should be arrested? That's your take? If so you seem to have even more disdain for the 1st Amendment than the mayor did.

 

[Nickyjo]

So, in your opinion, because she said she could hurl insults at the panel she should be arrested? That's your take? If so you seem to have even more disdain for the 1st Amendment than the mayor did.

As I said, I appeared before a city council meeting to criticize one of its members who was sitting there, but stayed within the rules for public comment. If I had hurled insults at him for several minutes, I would expect to have been corrected and if I didn’t cease after making my point, exceeding the time limit or violating some other rule, I would have expected to have been reprimanded, eventually removed, and even charged.

I assume what was requested of her by way of limits applies in most bodies that make room for public comments. What rules would you set for such things?

 

[Lutherf]

As I said, I appeared before a city council meeting to criticize one of its members who was sitting there, but stayed within the rules for public comment. If I had hurled insults at him for several minutes, I would expect to have been corrected and if I didn’t cease after making my point, exceeding the time limit or violating some other rule, I would have expected to have been reprimanded, eventually removed, and even charged.

I assume what was requested of her by way of limits applies in most bodies that make room for public comments. What rules would you set for such things?

I posted the ****ing video. She didn't hurl ANY insults. Go look for yourself.

 

[trixare4kids]

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!!!

That's not democracy! That's an abuse of democracy.
Screw that! What it's going to take to get the tyrants out? My advice, pay attention to what's happening in your own state, your city, and what each side is trying to promise you and if their promises are realistic, beneficial to you and yours. If not, vote for the other guy. Buy beware!