As reported in The News Tribune today, Pierce County Council members approved an ordinance earlier this week that says citizens who speak at public council meetings "may not attack or make any allusion to the motives of any council member."
What it means to "attack" is apparently left to the discretion of the council chairman, who can have violators silenced or thrown out.
Tribune reporter Aaron Corvin summarizes one of the "incidents" that led Councilman Terry Lee to compare meetings to the Jerry Springer show. It seems last year a couple of citizens "admonished some council members for taking campaign contributions from developers before making decisions favorable to those developers."
Another time, in 2003, someone was rude.
Yep. Definitely gotta shut those citizens up.
The new rule was approved in a 4-0 vote by council members Terry Lee, Roger Bush, Dick Muri and Tim Farrell. All of these guys need to develop thicker skin and a healthy respect for free speech.
Posted by Marsha Michaelis at July 01, 2005 03:47 PM | Email ThisAnd as for the "allusion to the motives of any council member"... How dare they try to shield themselves from a layer of accountability!
Posted by: Jeremy on July 1, 2005 04:00 PMBut if you are a developer ramming houses every 5 feet- wow it's amazing how unimportant that land might suddenly be.
I suspect the pockets are VERY well lined up there in the meth capital of the country.
People should not be beligerant, but civic officials need to answer questions that are tough and that have passion. I can't believe that this City Council (soon to be non-city council) would be so brazen to try and stifle public debate.
Same with the so-called judge that ruled that talking about I912 on the radio is a "in-kind" contribution to NoNewGasTax. Does that also go for any reference then to Keep WA Rolling?
The ACLU should be jumping up and down on both these issues, but they won't because they believe in Socialist Dictatorships. Motto: Everyone should be the same and free, except us, who should rule over everyone because we know best.
Jeeze book me a boat to Cuba.
/sarc off
That should fix you pitch fork yielders!!!
Posted by: Jim L on July 1, 2005 05:11 PMThis is so ludicrous! I can just see some wimpy council member saying to some person he disagrees with, "No, I won't listen to you. You attacked me just now."
Some of the people who support this kind of thing, would be well served by reading about the rise of socialism/Communism in China in the 20th century.
Free speech was offered up on a dinner platter in that country.
Stefan:
I'm rolling on the floor reading the stories about Don Young in your column. Keep up the good work. This is VERY revealing. Mike.
Posted by: Mike on July 1, 2005 06:56 PMThe scary thing is that this is where the democratic party seems to be headed. Selective silencing of discourse.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on July 1, 2005 08:01 PMHOW DARE YOU QUESTION THEIR MOTIVES!!!!
Posted by: jcm on July 1, 2005 08:49 PMReasonable limits can be placed on a citizen's "outbursts" at a council meeting.
What I don't agree with is the arbitrary fashion with which this rule may be enforced. I say, let them say what they want... You fight 'bad speech' with 'good speech.'
But, you asked a legal question, and I don't think there is any First Amendment violation here - just a common sense, 'wimp factor' violation.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on July 1, 2005 11:47 PMGlad I left Pierce County 15 years ago, and no longer hold elective office there.
"Colorful" commentary, including outing of politician's motives, is always fair game. Guess it will be a new day in the People's Republic of Pierce.
Bring back the three person County Commission, when stuff got done, give and take was legitimate, and you actually knew those who represent you.
Posted by: The Geezer on July 2, 2005 06:15 AMBetween the "wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth" and the "bellyaching", you'd wonder why these folks would care at all how draconian the measures our local governments might impose upon the peasants.
I would be curious as to the elementary school you went to - the one I attended was more interested in a curriculum of shapes & colors, primary counting, etc. for 1st graders than campaign contributions.
You little scold does have a point in that moderators of a public meeting must maintain decorum. No one question is questioning that.
And public officials do have the prerogative to make rules - even stupid ones.
But your last point is probably your most insightful one: we don't care because we don't attend. Bullsh!t
I've been to city council meetings where the location is changed at the last moment (and without notice). I've been to meetings where I was the only one in the audience (where were you?). So what? Do I have to type more slowly so that you can "digest" it? The point of this thread is about the mindless invocation of rules meant not to enhance, but punish. They aren't even reacting knee-jerk - they are being pre-emptive. How would you react if they decided to limit access to the press?
If Stefan were to impose the same sort of illogic as the Pierce County Council did, you could be censured and removed from this blog for calling names. What sort of sense does that make?
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 2, 2005 08:54 AMYou "are not certain why the Pierce County Council needed to pass another ordinance when there was already one in its place and which is already strong enough to deal with these concerns?"
Come on Reporter, wake up, you know very well why.
You'd "wager that the majority of those bellyaching about this have never gone to a city or county council meeting or if so not in the last year because there is never anyone in the audience except media members and county employees."
Utterly irrelevant and spurious argument (If a tree falls . . . and no one is there . . . ).
Reporter," while you may mean well, your comments are gratuitous and if you consider yourself astute at all, they insult your own intelligence. “Impugning someone’s character” about campaign contributions is so subjective and hopelessly vague as to effectively prohibit any discussion of the subject.” “Speaking in a slanderous, libelous, or disorderly manner, or otherwise maligning any individual,” merely covers most all of the vague nebulous bases otherwise not aforementioned that can and will be used to stifle discourse."
You are being disingenuous and you know it. Quit pretending to be the high minded “voice of reason,” defending the indefensible at least until you have a real argument. Not that it matters, but I have testified in many public hearings and if you are true to your word, you have no doubt heard me speak. It is one thing to demand and enforce reasonable decorum; quite another to stifle opposition.
These rules are designed expressly to stifle opposition.
Kind of reminds me of the Kirkland City Council (I almost got hauled out of a Council meeting by a cop three months ago when a friend and I guffawed at something stupid the mayor said about how wonderful Tent City 4 has been (She's never read a newspaper, that mayor).
Again, with apologies to Willie the Shake:
ANTONY
Friends, Tacomans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury criticism, not to praise it.
The evil that men say lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with criticism. The noble Council
Hath told you criticism is discourteous:
If it were so, it is a grievous fault,
And grievously hath criticsim answer'd it.
Here, under leave of the Council and the rest--
For the Council are honourable men;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak at critcim's funeral.
It's a citizen's right, Constitutional and just to all:
But the Council says it is discourteous;
And the Council are honourable man.
Criticism hath brought many issues home to voters
Whose ballots did the general election tally:
Did this in criticims seem discourteous?
When the electorate have queried, criticism hath been the way:
Courtesy should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet the Council says it is discourteous;
And the Council are honourable man.
You all did see that in Pierce County
Citizens often questioned the Council,
Which the Council did refuse: was this discourteous?
Yet the Council says it is discourteous;
And, sure, they are honourable men.
Citizens speak not to disprove what the Council thinks,
But here citizens speak what they do know.
They all did have rights once, not without cause:
What cause withholds them then, to mourn for free speech?
O freedom! thou art fled to brutish politicians,
And men have lost their rights. Bear with me;
their rights are in the coffin there with liberty,
And they must pause till they come back to them.
Each time you post, you prove my point for me. What the council did (in essence) was no different than to rule that "you may not offend us".
Like demanding teats for a bull, there was no legitimate impetus or rational for imposing this rule.
You said:
(1.) "With that said, I'm not certain why the Pierce County Council needed to pass another ordinance when there was already one in its place and which is already strong enough to deal with these concerns."
(2.) "Once again I'll add the only thing odd about this issue is not that the council chair can limit the amount of comments taken from the public but why they needed to pass a new ordinance to do so when one is already in place."
Sounds like you agree with me!
Further, and probably most importantly, they prohibit any utterance from any mere mortal who would dare; "make any allusion to the motives of any council member ". My dictionary defines allusion as "Passing reference or indirect mention". Do you recognize how open-ended the interpretation of this rule is?!! This completely supercedes slander or libel - it can include any statement that includes a councilman's name!
If in fact you are a journalist (as your poster alias would imply) or at all interested in protecting the First Amendment rights of citizens to exercise their right of free speech (as most liberals claim to do), you would see the profound problems that this rule sets up.
I realize that liberals have a short attention span, and that you have likely scurried along to your next screed, but, should you happen to stumble back to this thread, could you please answer why you would want to squelch your fellow citizens?
I’m glad you are such a good advocate for our interests as citizens. Thanks for pointing out that simply because something may have been wrong for a very long time, it is now acceptable. Dried blood eventually turns black, but it remains nevertheless - blood. It comes as no surprise to me that the reason why Pierce County is enacting a redundant harm anew eludes you. Besides, you don't live in Pierce County or have an ax to grind there, so it doesn't matter to you. Nevertheless other localities (as you probably well know) enact and enforce similar rules. Why justify and applaud them?
JOE PODUNK COUNCILMAN: “Comprehensive regulation of speech is an appropriate thing for localities and if I (as a local official) don't like what is being said in a public meeting about public matters, I don't give a damn if anyone likes it or not, mostly because I don’t have to. see Ordinance 1.28.050 Further, as a matter of convenience to me and my agenda, I can and do require that speakers fill out a form before-hand, summarizing what I they intend to say, and if I don't like it I simply refuse them permission to speak. If they vary from this "script," in any way during their comments, I simply cut them off. If they say anything more, I will have them removed and/or arrested for breach of the peace and then fined [great revenues].”
“I like this because it prevents people from wasting MY time making comments that are superfluous or contrary to the elite wisdom of pronouncements I make.”
“I know that this is expressly contrary and violative of the first Amendment to the Constitution because I heard that somewhere, but I don’t give a $hit because no one that ever testifies here has the wherewithal to constitutionally challenge it except the ACLU and they don’t care because the interests my breach protects are not generally liberal ones. When or rather if they become specifically liberal, you can damn well bet they will be challenged, especially if the subject matter is race, gender, so-called CHRISTAIN religious expression, property ownership issues, or other liberally approved suspect classes of subject matter purportedly protected under 14th amendment substantive due process rather as incorporated by 1st amendment speech. All hell will break loose and Freedom of Speech will suddenly mean something.”
Time and history have proven that while the subject matter changes the principal stands. Rules designed expressly to stifle opposition work direct harm eventually against all sides of any polemic. The right is NOT abusing them federally though given the same overarching power they could, and the left should not use them locally.
Don’t worry though, you don’t need to comment, just let those you ELECTED do your bidding. They have your best interests at heart.
Happy Birthday to a great American: George W. Bush!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 6, 2005 06:07 PM