It is illegal to criticize government in parts of Arizona

[Mr Person]

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.

Yeah. And they'll be doing a 10% flaying every year, to the hour.



You really need to accept that you never know everything about anything and that the madder you are appears to correlate with your lack of knowledge about the thing.




I'm not the only person who told you how and why you're very likely wrong. It's not a conspiracy. It's just the law is ****ing complicated, which is the reason it costs so much money to hire lawyers.

 

[trixare4kids]

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




Have you considered not hyperventilating in literally every post?

It isn't a lie. It appears that the first amendment is against the rules in this particular Arizona city. Debate the O/P instead of cheaply referring to him in third person.

​

 

[trixare4kids]

Seems a bit harsh.

Yeah, just a tad

Sometimes the police go overboard.

Yes, and so do the thin-skinned politicians who solicit the police to arrest those who offend them.

Hopefully, the woman will be able to hire a top-notch civil rights attorney instead and not the usual ambulance chasers working on a contingency basis.

 

[trixare4kids]

That would’ve been what Trump would want if someone disrupted his meeting.

Why is Trump being dragged into a thread that is about the local government of a particular state?

Either that or have his supporters punch her.

Ad hominem fail.

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

You didn't ask me, but do you really want to know? I'm going to tell you anyway. She should have been asked to leave, escorted out, and that should have been the end of it.

 

[Lutherf]

Yeah. And they'll be doing a 10% flaying every year, to the hour.



You really need to accept that you never know everything about anything and that the madder you are appears to correlate with your lack of knowledge about the thing.




I'm not the only person who told you how and why you're very likely wrong. It's not a conspiracy. It's just the law is ****ing complicated, which is the reason it costs so much money to hire lawyers.

She was talking about policy, not the person. As a city resident she SHOULD have a say in how city money is spent but, because free speech is on the way out in this country, that's now criminal.

 

[Pyrite]

She was talking about policy, not the person. As a city resident she SHOULD have a say in how city money is spent but, because free speech is on the way out in this country, that's now criminal.

No, it's not.

There are rules about speaking at public meetings. This lady didn't want to abide by them.

There are consequences for breaking the rules. Looks as if some posters don't want them to be imposed on her.

No surprise. Many right-wingers have been groomed to believe that trump and his cult shouldn't have to be expected to abide by rules, norms, regs, laws etc.

 

[nvflash]

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".

Well, you can yell fire when there is a fire, but you can't expect you are going to make an ass out of public officials at an official hearing or proceeding of government and not meet their jackbooted thugs.

You want to go to war, you better bring an army of your own, and you take a shot at those in power, you better not miss.

She should have accomplished much more criticizing government from a YouTube channel. Build a fallowing, get some supporters, and hold a very loud, very peaceful protest that is just so disruptive from outside the building that they can't really hold their official proceedings.

The best disinfectant is light, whatever this woman's beef was, and I do not know, she went in and physical tried to fight the system without an army. Brave, but stupid.

 

[Lutherf]

No, it's not.

There are rules about speaking at public meetings. This lady didn't want to abide by them.

There are consequences for breaking the rules. Looks as if some posters don't want them to be imposed on her.

No surprise. Many right-wingers have been groomed to believe that trump and his cult shouldn't have to be expected to abide by rules, norms, regs, laws etc.

She didn't break the rules. Like I keep saying, she was talking about policy, not the person.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

She was talking about policy, not the person.

That is a lie, you are lying again, stop lying.

 

[Pyrite]

She didn't break the rules. Like I keep saying, she was talking about policy, not the person.

Sure looks as if she did.

Arizona woman arrested after criticizing city official at council meeting

Rebekah Massie claims the arrest violated her First Amendment rights.

www.komonews.com

An Arizona woman was arrested and cited for trespassing last week after attempting to voice concerns about an official at a city council meeting.

Libertarian activist Rebekah Massie during the Surprise City Council meeting claimed City Attorney Robert Wingo has violated the Arizona constitution, the state bar’s rules of professional conduct and the U.S. Bill of Rights. She pointed to Arizona laws concerning public employees, cities, elections, and electors.

Massie then told the city council she had several public records requests for another issue. However, Mayor Skip Hall interrupted to read her the meeting rules he said she agreed to.

The guidelines state that “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” and that “any such charges or complaints should be submitted during normal business hours to the City Manager for appropriate action.”

Massie claimed the rules violate her First Amendment rights. Hall then said she was personally attacking Wingo and issued her a warning....

 

[Pyrite]

Sure looks as if she did.

Arizona woman arrested after criticizing city official at council meeting

Rebekah Massie claims the arrest violated her First Amendment rights.

www.komonews.com

An Arizona woman was arrested and cited for trespassing last week after attempting to voice concerns about an official at a city council meeting.

Libertarian activist Rebekah Massie during the Surprise City Council meeting claimed City Attorney Robert Wingo has violated the Arizona constitution, the state bar’s rules of professional conduct and the U.S. Bill of Rights. She pointed to Arizona laws concerning public employees, cities, elections, and electors.

Massie then told the city council she had several public records requests for another issue. However, Mayor Skip Hall interrupted to read her the meeting rules he said she agreed to.

The guidelines state that “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” and that “any such charges or complaints should be submitted during normal business hours to the City Manager for appropriate action.”

Massie claimed the rules violate her First Amendment rights. Hall then said she was personally attacking Wingo and issued her a warning....

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

"Ms. Massie, I've got to interrupt you here because this is the public meeting forum you agreed to when you speak and I want to read this to you," Hall said. "That there are 'Oral communications during the City Council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employ of the city, or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by their name, or by any other reference that tends to identify him or her."

Massie immediately told Hall that he was violating her First Amendment rights. Hall disagreed.

"This is your warning," Hall said.

"Warning for what?" Massie said.

"Warning for attacking a city attorney personally," Hall said.

"This is factual information," Massie said. "You are violating my First Amendment rights."

"It doesn't matter," Hall said. "This is what you agreed to for speaking, this is the form."

Massie signed the form that stated the rules for the public forum, but she said the rules were unconstitutional and said she could curse at them for three minutes straight and it would be protected speech. Hall again disagreed.

After a verbal exchange continued, the mayor ordered police to escort Massie out....

 

[nvflash]

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.

Being right does not matter, doing right matters.

She went in there and tried to make a jackass out of one of the local corrupt bosses, she had to know what was coming.

You can martyr yourself all you want to, but does that effect the change you want?

The whole system is corrupt, she was of course right and within her rights to do what she did, they just made rules against it to protect a corrupt system. If she didn't know that going it, she should have.

We don't live under rule in this country, not since 1776, but the corruption is so high on every level you have to pick your battles, and like I said, you don't go to war without and army.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

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

"Ms. Massie, I've got to interrupt you here because this is the public meeting forum you agreed to when you speak and I want to read this to you," Hall said. "That there are 'Oral communications during the City Council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employ of the city, or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by their name, or by any other reference that tends to identify him or her."

Massie immediately told Hall that he was violating her First Amendment rights. Hall disagreed.

"This is your warning," Hall said.

"Warning for what?" Massie said.

"Warning for attacking a city attorney personally," Hall said.

"This is factual information," Massie said. "You are violating my First Amendment rights."

"It doesn't matter," Hall said. "This is what you agreed to for speaking, this is the form."

Massie signed the form that stated the rules for the public forum, but she said the rules were unconstitutional and said she could curse at them for three minutes straight and it would be protected speech. Hall again disagreed.

After a verbal exchange continued, the mayor ordered police to escort Massie out....

She signed the form, meaning she consented to the rules for that day. Then broke the rules (which she consented to). Then resisted arrest physically. The facts line up on the Mayor's side for right now. We'll see what the courts say, but the odds look like they are against her. At some point in this whole debacle, she's doing it to herself. And then seems surprised that she will be arrested in front of her 10-year-old son -- who she may have brought in an attempt to use them as a shield in case it came to that. What ever happened to publishing an open letter to the Mayor on the Internet, etc. - no one is preventing her from criticizing that official -- just not there in that room, and she agreed to that. It's a "time and place" thing.

@nvflash has an opinion similar to mine.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

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.

It happens. Thank you for clarifying though

 

[ElChupacabra]

She signed the form, meaning she consented to the rules for that day. Then broke the rules (which she consented to). Then resisted arrest physically. The facts line up on the Mayor's side for right now. We'll see what the courts say, but the odds look like they are against her. At some point in this whole debacle, she's doing it to herself. And then seems surprised that she will be arrested in front of her 10-year-old son -- who she may have brought in an attempt to use them as a shield in case it came to that. What ever happened to publishing an open letter to the Mayor on the Internet, etc. - no one is preventing her from criticizing that official -- just not there in that room, and she agreed to that. It's a "time and place" thing.

@nvflash has an opinion similar to mine.

This 100%.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Yeah, just a tad

Yes, and so do the thin-skinned politicians who solicit the police to arrest those who offend them.

Hopefully, the woman will be able to hire a top-notch civil rights attorney instead and not the usual ambulance chasers working on a contingency basis.

I watched the vid, and I can see she was definitely harassing them but, where does one draw the line?

It's difficult to say. Surprise is a rural town out here, not super hip. lol


Skip Hall is a bit of a hardline old school republican, a war veteran, and obviously didn't take kindly to the interruption but, I don't think manhandling someone in front of their child was cool. Maybe just let some time pass, wasted time isn't that big of a deal right? So you miss out on a session that day, not that big of a deal. IMO.

 

[ElChupacabra]

It isn't a lie. It appears that the first amendment is against the rules in this particular Arizona city. Debate the O/P instead of cheaply referring to him in third person.

Incorrect. Making complaints or attacks against a city attorney was not on the list of what could be discussed, that's what was against the rules she agreed to. She is well within her rights to complain all she wants about the city attorney at a meeting where that is allowed. In the meantime she could choose a wide variety of ways to call out the city attorney, and since the government can't do squat about that, it's probably the best course of action.

 

[Ginger Ale]

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.

Skip Hall, the mayor she was talking to is republican, you are aware of that right?

Surprise Arizona has a republican leaning majority.

 

[Ginger Ale]

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.

I know who you're talking about, yeah, I didn't even think about that. He was in California tho right? They probably let him get away with more before they ran him out there. You know, libs are a bit too nice. lol

 

[Ginger Ale]

 

[brianpatrick]

I know who you're talking about, yeah, I didn't even think about that. He was in California tho right? They probably let him get away with more before they ran him out there. You know, libs are a bit too nice. lol

Yep. The California dude. They let him go on and on. Last I heard he had boxes of unsold merch in his garage.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Yep. The California dude. They let him go on and on. Last I heard he had boxes of unsold merch in his garage.

That's unfortunate, I know he put a lot of work into protesting their government, or should I say advertising for the cause?
Is he republican or libertarian? I can't remember...

 

[brianpatrick]

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

Thats what will happen if we let Trump get into the White House again. MAGA authoritarians.

Yeah, just a tad

Yes, and so do the thin-skinned politicians who solicit the police to arrest those who offend them.

Hopefully, the woman will be able to hire a top-notch civil rights attorney instead and not the usual ambulance chasers working on a contingency basis.

yeah, hopefully. We can’t let these MAGA goons push us around.

 

[Nickyjo]

Why is Trump being dragged into a thread that is about the local government of a particular state?

Ad hominem fail.


You didn't ask me, but do you really want to know? I'm going to tell you anyway. She should have been asked to leave, escorted out, and that should have been the end of it.

She was asked to leave and refused. Then what?

 

[Ginger Ale]

She was asked to leave and refused. Then what?

I personally think they could have helped her calm down outside and allowed her to leave. She was obviously distraught and her feelings were riled. I don't think she was a harm to anyone, and she had her child there with her. Probably teaching her about her free speech rights!

I doubt the woman posed such a danger to the officer. I think this country really needs a chill pill!