City of Shasta Lake says public commenters deemed “boisterous,” “profane” or “slanderous” can be banned
The city’s new regulation empowers elected council members to remove public commenters based on subjective criteria regulating the content of speech, something that a legal expert say curtails the community’s Constitutional rights.
Despite community concerns about proposed updates to a City of Shasta Lake policy that limit the public’s right to free speech, council members empowered themselves earlier this week to eject individuals whose public comments they deem “slanderous,” “boisterous,” “profane” or “persistent interruptions.”
Under the updated policy, which was approved unanimously at Tuesday’s council meeting, any individual deemed to have violated the council’s rules on allowable speech could be ejected from the room. Allowing them back would require a majority council vote.
Enforcing that policy, a legal expert from the First Amendment Coalition told Shasta Scout, would violate an open-meeting law known as the Brown Act and could also violate First Amendment rights. That’s because the policy allows elected officials to censor the public based on subjective opinions that a remark is “slanderous” or “profane”, something that could be used to silence political dissent.
The council’s approval of the updated policy was mostly at odds with the perspectives of multiple public commenters during the meeting who agreed that decorum and civil discourse are important, but felt updates to the council’s policy crossed a line.
“Anything can be interpreted as a threat,” 17-year-old Yvonne Del Rio of Shasta College told the council, whether it be an opposition to an agreement that you guys have.” Her sentiments were echoed by others.
On the other hand, a young man who gave the name Zachary raised the issue that these meetings are live streamed, saying he believed the same content moderation policies should apply for public meetings as apply to YouTube content.
Unlike YouTube, the City of Shasta Lake is a governmental body restrained both by the limits of California’s Brown Act and the First Amendment which place firm limits on how speech can be restricted in public settings.
As City Clerk Charity Tatlow pointed out during the meeting, the Brown Act already delineates procedures with disruptions, such as taking a recess if the ability to conduct the public’s business is truly impeded, say in the case of loud shouting by a community member that drowns out the chair’s voice.
But Council member Dan Ringwelski saw no problem with the policy update saying “I don’t see anywhere where this would impede or infringe on anybody’s First Amendment … it’s not really giving the council any power that they didn’t already have. It just codifies it.”
The City of Shasta Lake’s municipal code covers the mayor’s obligation to maintain decorum during council meetings and discusses how council members can call for a recess, but the code’s section about the city council does not address a situation in which members of the public could be ejected from a meeting based on the content of their speech.
Nevertheless the city’s attorney, John Kenny, gave his legal approval of the new policy Tuesday acknowledging that it allows the council to silence dissenting speech but saying he doesn’t think it will be used that way.
“The notion that the city council is going to silence somebody that’s speaking — there’s not much basis for that. All you have to do is watch tonight’s meeting to understand that,” Kenny said, referring to the kinds of fiery public comments on a variety of topics that were allowed throughout this week’s meeting.
Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (12)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Wintu people say proposed reforms to a state list of tribes is erasure, threatens their homelands
A state commission’s proposal to remove Wintu and other federally non-recognized tribes from a consultation contact list would leave cultural sites vulnerable to destruction, tribal members say, and represents a form of unconstitutional discrimination.
Decision on city financing for the Ironman competition tabled by Redding City Council
The council’s decision followed a tense discussion on financial spending. The item will be brought back into discussion on Feb. 17. An Ironman official says he’s not concerned about the delay.
Shasta man had illicit marijuana grow and underground bunker in addition to illegal weapons, CHP says
A press release from the California Highway Patrol alleges that Michael Kamfort was operating an illegal grow when he was arrested on weapons charges, including manufacturing a “ghost gun,” on Tuesday in Anderson.
This county loves to be sued for some reason, I’m not even surprised, it’s just one more for the pile
It sure looks like the City of Shasta Lake might have found a pot of gold somewhere, because that’s what it will take should they violate the Brown Act or the First Amendment. I seriously don’t think Trump’s DOJ is going to come to their rescue. Could be wrong. All eyes are watching…
In California, “disturbing the peace” is a crime defined under Penal Code Section 415. It prohibits three main types of behavior in public: intentionally making loud and unreasonable noises; fighting or challenging someone to a fight; and using offensive words likely to provoke an immediate, violent reaction. It appears the councilmembers prefer having the ability to kick a person out rather than have them cited and arrested. Overall, the policy is much ado about very little. If misapplied it is subject to a court challenge.
Interesting that Shasta Scout pretends to advocate for free speech yet screens all the comments to their articles.
Larry: First Amendment rights don’t apply to comments on private platforms like YouTube or Shasta Scout.
I get it. You don’t practice what you preach. Sorry you don’t see the hypocrisy in that.
Gotta love it when people pretending to know a topic, try talking about it loudly
Nevin,
Thank you for your balanced and fair reporting on this story. Annelise please review this story versus your earlier story on this topic. A journalist is judged by their integrity and professionalism,
Mary: would love to hear what you see as different in my story as compared to this one.
Let’s start with you using a picture of the Shasta County Board in your story about Shasta Lake. Let’s also take a look at your comments to the story attacking a former Shasta County Board member in your story about Shasta Lake. Should I give you more examples or is that enough.
Mary. One only has to read the caption, or my comments in response to questions, to understand why the picture is there. Also, I was not attacking Patrick Jones I was commenting on his protection of a speaker’s First Amendment rights.
It’s always freedom of speech until it’s somebody that you don’t like that is talking…
Kinda like what Trump is doing right now.