It is illegal to criticize government in parts of Arizona

[Ginger Ale]

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.

Indeed!

 

[brianpatrick]

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

Because most the state and the city is a MAGA haven where these kinds of laws are practiced and will be endorsed and expanded under a MAGA second term, with the blessing of Trump. This is why we must all come together and make sure Trump and all the MAGA politicians never get elected again.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Because most the state and the city is a MAGA haven where these kinds of laws are practiced and will be endorsed and expanded under a MAGA second term, with the blessing of Trump. This is why we must all come together and make sure Trump and all the MAGA politicians never get elected again.

Indeed! This threads looking a bit abandoned now that the OP realizes the mayor wasn't a libturd, but a MAGA. I guess the poor woman can fry now......

 

[Lutherf]

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

Surprise Arizona has a republican leaning majority.

Who the **** cares about the party? Is violation of the 1st Amendment dependent on what party you’re criticizing?

Pretty typical for a commie to think that way

 

[Ginger Ale]

Who the **** cares about the party? Is violation of the 1st Amendment dependent on what party you’re criticizing?

Pretty typical for a commie to think that way

Evidently you care about the party.
"Then again, left wingers HATE the Constitution so it's no surprise that you support the action taken against her."
^wasn't that you?

Maybe you should read through your thread, and while you're at it, have this in the back of your mind.

"Is violation of the 1st Amendment dependent on what party you’re criticizing?"

Best of luck! Aw, typical commies, sometimes they lose their way.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

She was asked to leave and refused. Then what?

And she tried to make it so the officer couldn't arrest her.

 

[Lutherf]

Evidently you care about the party.
"Then again, left wingers HATE the Constitution so it's no surprise that you support the action taken against her."
^wasn't that you?

Maybe you should read through your thread, and while you're at it, have this in the back of your mind.

"Is violation of the 1st Amendment dependent on what party you’re criticizing?"

Best of luck! Aw, typical commies, sometimes they lose their way.

If you believe for one minute that left wing thought is the sole domain of Democrats you're living in a fantasy world. Yeah, lefties have kind of cornered the market on Marxism but they aren't the only ones that have adopted that mindset. The Bush/McCain/Romney wing of the GOP is right there with y'all. The only difference with them is that they see adopting Marxism as a way to get more votes for the party rather than as a global endgame. It's those cucks that allowed our system to move as far left as it has.

What we are witnessing in this country and around the world is the absolute eradication of individual rights so that we can "achieve" global governance. This election isn't about the political parties or even the candidates. It's about whether people will retain their freedom or whether they will hand it over to a Marxist, global cabal.

 

[Ginger Ale]

If you believe for one minute that left wing thought is the sole domain of Democrats you're living in a fantasy world. Yeah, lefties have kind of cornered the market on Marxism but they aren't the only ones that have adopted that mindset. The Bush/McCain/Romney wing of the GOP is right there with y'all. The only difference with them is that they see adopting Marxism as a way to get more votes for the party rather than as a global endgame. It's those cucks that allowed our system to move as far left as it has.

What we are witnessing in this country and around the world is the absolute eradication of individual rights so that we can "achieve" global governance. This election isn't about the political parties or even the candidates. It's about whether people will retain their freedom or whether they will hand it over to a Marxist, global cabal.

Wow, that's quite a little rant. America as a whole is pretty right leaning compared to the rest of the world. Englands far right would be considered socialist here.
Just how far right do you want to go?

 

[Nickyjo]

If you believe for one minute that left wing thought is the sole domain of Democrats you're living in a fantasy world. Yeah, lefties have kind of cornered the market on Marxism but they aren't the only ones that have adopted that mindset. The Bush/McCain/Romney wing of the GOP is right there with y'all. The only difference with them is that they see adopting Marxism as a way to get more votes for the party rather than as a global endgame. It's those cucks that allowed our system to move as far left as it has.

What we are witnessing in this country and around the world is the absolute eradication of individual rights so that we can "achieve" global governance. This election isn't about the political parties or even the candidates. It's about whether people will retain their freedom or whether they will hand it over to a Marxist, global cabal.

Paranoid McCarthyism on steroids.

 

[Peter]

And she tried to make it so the officer couldn't arrest her.

They could have avoided this whole situation by just letting her finish speaking and then asking for the next speaker rather than have the police drag her out.

 

[Ginger Ale]

They could have avoided this whole situation by just letting her finish speaking and then asking for the next speaker rather than have the police drag her out.

Yep. Could have been handled better but, America is hyper and overly aggressive. We should stop that, and get some anger management! lol

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Yep. Could have been handled better but, America is hyper and overly aggressive. We should stop that, and get some anger management! lol

…which is compounded by lack of mental health care and utter disregard (in many cases, not all) for mental health as a whole. -If- one was interested in a non-jail, constructive, and creative sentence for this woman, I suggest the judge put her on probation pending the completion of an anger management class.

 

[OlNate]

Hmm... this one makes me a little uncomfortable. Does anyone have more footage?

Sometimes these "my rights!" folks take things too far in an effort to prove a point... but if she was respectful and was simply trying to bring up an issue, I don't think saying "you can't criticize a public employee in a public governmental meeting" should be OK.

Not sure how to feel about this one. While I'm all over here saying one shouldn't abuse their freedom of speech to be an asshole, being able to criticize government is something we should all be able to do. Is a government really accountable to the people they serve if they do not allow themselves to be criticized in the very meeting that is supposed to be their interaction with the people they serve?

 

[RF667799]

Hmm... this one makes me a little uncomfortable. Does anyone have more footage?

Sometimes these "my rights!" folks take things too far in an effort to prove a point... but if she was respectful and was simply trying to bring up an issue, I don't think saying "you can't criticize a public employee in a public governmental meeting" should be OK.

Not sure how to feel about this one. While I'm all over here saying one shouldn't abuse their freedom of speech to be an asshole, being able to criticize government is something we should all be able to do. Is a government really accountable to the people they serve if they do not allow themselves to be criticized in the very meeting that is supposed to be their interaction with the people they serve?

As best I recall....

Rufus T Firefly: Okay, does anyone have any old business?

Finance Minister: Your Excellency, in regards to the taxes....

Rufus T Firefly: No, that's new business. Okay...does anyone have any new business?

Finance Minister: Yes, about the taxes....

Rufus T Firefly: Nope. Sorry, that's old business now.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Hmm... this one makes me a little uncomfortable. Does anyone have more footage?

Sometimes these "my rights!" folks take things too far in an effort to prove a point... but if she was respectful and was simply trying to bring up an issue, I don't think saying "you can't criticize a public employee in a public governmental meeting" should be OK.

Not sure how to feel about this one. While I'm all over here saying one shouldn't abuse their freedom of speech to be an asshole, being able to criticize government is something we should all be able to do. Is a government really accountable to the people they serve if they do not allow themselves to be criticized in the very meeting that is supposed to be their interaction with the people they serve?

As I mentioned, she agreed to the rules of the meeting, then broke them. It's a "time and place" issue. If you were able to prove that this happened multiple times in different situations (ie., gets dinged by the government for posting about it online), then it crosses into censorship. Although, to be fair, we are all kind of projecting from a single data point here …

 

[Peter]

As I mentioned, she agreed to the rules of the meeting, then broke them. It's a "time and place" issue. If you were able to prove that this happened multiple times in different situations (ie., gets dinged by the government for posting about it online), then it crosses into censorship. Although, to be fair, we are all kind of projecting from a single data point here …

From what I noticed there was a problem about an officials pay and the ability of that official to give themselves a pay rise and they decided it was against the rules to talk about that subject.

If that's the case then all public officials can just ban anyone from complaining about anything at public meetings which negates the point of public meetings.

 

[OlNate]

As I mentioned, she agreed to the rules of the meeting, then broke them. It's a "time and place" issue. If you were able to prove that this happened multiple times in different situations (ie., gets dinged by the government for posting about it online), then it crosses into censorship. Although, to be fair, we are all kind of projecting from a single data point here …

Yes, this is understood. I was more commenting on the fact that she had to sign such a thing in the first place. The fact that the inability to criticize government, to any extent and in almost any context, is institutionally removed in this setting is more the issue, and deserves some consideration.

Again, I don't have enough information to really finalize a stance, but these are things that concern me, and should probably concern others as well. A form saying you won't saay mean things about any of the government employees? Really? I dunno...

 

[Risky Thicket]

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.

I can’t speak for this issue but in the Phoenix area there has been frequent school board and local government meeting interruptions primarily by “Karens”.

Hell, it may be a national problem. It’s a time in our country where frustrated people feel compelled to ignore public meeting formats. In my opinion and experience it happens when citizens who have never attended public meetings or have only limited experience.

If you haven’t attended public meetings, and most people haven’t, I’m here to tell you they are for the most part boring as hell.

Having served on a number of local and state boards and committees it can be an issue when some citizens want to talk and talk and talk forever. You want to hear from everyone but there is never enough time. Most times, it’s better to contact and meet with board or committee members outside scheduled meetings.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Yes, this is understood. I was more commenting on the fact that she had to sign such a thing in the first place. The fact that the inability to criticize government, to any extent and in almost any context, is institutionally removed in this setting is more the issue, and deserves some consideration.

Again, I don't have enough information to really finalize a stance, but these are things that concern me, and should probably concern others as well. A form saying you won't saay mean things about any of the government employees? Really? I dunno...

Again, I can’t speak to the issue in the OP but once you get into personnel issues board members must follow rules and laws. Often personnel issues must be discussed in private sessions during scheduled board meetings and there are often strict rules as to who, what, when and where. There board normally breaks from the open meeting and goes into private or executive session in a closed room until the matter at hand is addressed upon which the board returns to the public meeting. It’s fairly standard procedure in my experience.

 

[OlNate]

Again, I can’t speak to the issue in the OP but once you get into personnel issues board members must follow rules and laws. Often personnel issues must be discussed in private sessions during scheduled board meetings and there are often strict rules as to who, what, when and where. There board normally breaks from the open meeting and goes into private or executive session in a closed room until the matter at hand is addressed upon which the board returns to the public meeting. It’s fairly standard procedure in my experience.

I agree with what you're saying, but his doesn't seem like a personal issue, but rather questioning why someone is getting a performance related raise.

Again, I haven't established a stance, I don't think there's enough information to do so, but the information presented, taken at face value, is bugging me... hehe

Thanks for trying though.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

From what I noticed there was a problem about an officials pay and the ability of that official to give themselves a pay rise and they decided it was against the rules to talk about that subject.

If that's the case then all public officials can just ban anyone from complaining about anything at public meetings which negates the point of public meetings.

But it's still not preventing you from sending a strongly-worded letter, text, email, or calling your local official. It also depends on what the agenda was, and why it was against the rules. For all we know, there's probably a whole bunch of things that led up to this moment -- on both sides. As far as "banning everything," there's a huge gulf between "this specific meeting is not for lodging complaints at specific officials" (which was what the Mayor took aim at -- a general statement might have worked for all we know) and "don't talk about anything here ever."

What perhaps bothers me the most about this is that she was bewildered that she was even accused of trespassing when she knew it broke the terms of the meeting. If you loaned me your property for a day and told me that I could do anything but that one thing there, and then I did that one thing you told me not to do -- I'd be technically trespassing on your property for as long as I did that one thing.

I will say that maybe I am a little biased here because we have what I call the "publicity stunt queen" -- the Green Party's Jill Stein (G-CA I think?) She showed up at a debate as part of the "Occupy the Debate" stunt, where she planned to have her supporters take over the Presidential debate stage in 2016 and 2020 since she didn't qualify for the debate, then whined about how a "presidential candidate" got arrested. If you show up under threat of rushing the debate stage -- you're gonna get arrested. In 2020 -- it was even worse because her supporters got arrested, but she didn't that I can recall. So anything that reminds me of pulling a stunt like hers does start me out as biased against the person instigating the arrest -- in this case, the speaker was politely, but assertively, asked to sit down and she refused, then got bewildered about getting arrested and mentioned the presence of her 10-year-old son as a way to somehow get more speaking time. To me, using children as political pawns is actually worse because most children do not understand what's going on to begin with, nor are they willing participants.

(The video of her doing this is somewhere on this thread…)

 

[BitterPill]

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!!!

What is one to expect from the Surprise Police Department if not a few surprises?

MAGA.

 

[Peter]

But it's still not preventing you from sending a strongly-worded letter, text, email, or calling your local official. It also depends on what the agenda was, and why it was against the rules. For all we know, there's probably a whole bunch of things that led up to this moment -- on both sides. As far as "banning everything," there's a huge gulf between "this specific meeting is not for lodging complaints at specific officials" (which was what the Mayor took aim at -- a general statement might have worked for all we know) and "don't talk about anything here ever."

What perhaps bothers me the most about this is that she was bewildered that she was even accused of trespassing when she knew it broke the terms of the meeting. If you loaned me your property for a day and told me that I could do anything but that one thing there, and then I did that one thing you told me not to do -- I'd be technically trespassing on your property for as long as I did that one thing.

I will say that maybe I am a little biased here because we have what I call the "publicity stunt queen" -- the Green Party's Jill Stein (G-CA I think?) She showed up at a debate as part of the "Occupy the Debate" stunt, where she planned to have her supporters take over the Presidential debate stage in 2016 and 2020 since she didn't qualify for the debate, then whined about how a "presidential candidate" got arrested. If you show up under threat of rushing the debate stage -- you're gonna get arrested. In 2020 -- it was even worse because her supporters got arrested, but she didn't that I can recall. So anything that reminds me of pulling a stunt like hers does start me out as biased against the person instigating the arrest -- in this case, the speaker was politely, but assertively, asked to sit down and she refused, then got bewildered about getting arrested and mentioned the presence of her 10-year-old son as a way to somehow get more speaking time. To me, using children as political pawns is actually worse because most children do not understand what's going on to begin with, nor are they willing participants.

(The video of her doing this is somewhere on this thread…)

If they have an open meeting they need to be prepared to hear people speak even if they don't like what they say.
They should have let her finish and simply let the next person speak.
What harm is she causing by simply standing at a podium and speaking?
If she says something libelous then there's plenty of witnesses so they can sue the pants off her.

Nothing she did warranted physically dragging her from the building and having big burly cops cry about her resisting arrest when at most she lightly shoved them is insane.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

If they have an open meeting they need to be prepared to hear people speak even if they don't like what they say.
They should have let her finish and simply let the next person speak.
What harm is she causing by simply standing at a podium and speaking?
If she says something libelous then there's plenty of witnesses so they can sue the pants off her.

Nothing she did warranted physically dragging her from the building and having big burly cops cry about her resisting arrest when at most she lightly shoved them is insane.

I see her contorting herself so she can't be apprehended. And shoving an officer, however lightly, is technically an assault. So … you wanna make this worse for her?

 

[Lutherf]

I see her contorting herself so she can't be apprehended. And shoving an officer, however lightly, is technically an assault. So … you wanna make this worse for her?

I totally agree with you. People need to understand that government has ALL the power and the people are there for no other reason than to validate whatever government says and does. Resistance is treason and the ****ers on the ground need to be taught regularly who is boss!!!

It's the only way we can save democracy.