Proposed update to City of Shasta Lake policy poses free speech concerns, First Amendment attorney says

In response to Shasta Scout’s questions, staff from the City of Shasta Lake amended a draft policy released last week that poses limitations on public comment at city council meetings. A First Amendment Coalition attorney says the language of the policy remains problematic.

A member of the public speaks at the City of Shasta Lake council chambers on April 30, 2025. At the time, the board of supervisors was borrowing the chamber. Photo by Annelise Pierce.

“That language on its face is pretty clearly unconstitutional.”

That’s a comment from First Amendment Coalition (FAC) attorney David Snyder on a draft policy that will be discussed by the City of Shasta Lake this week. The policy updates existing rules for the city’s council chamber to prohibit public speakers from using “foul”, “abusive,” or “boisterous” language as well as “slanderous remarks.” 

Outlawing those kinds of speech would violate the community’s right to free speech, FAC’s Executive Director Snyder said, both under California’s transparency law, known as the Brown Act, and the First Amendment.

There’s a universe of protected speech that could fall within those definitions,” Snyder told Shasta Scout today, “depending on who is doing the defining.”

That’s because words like boisterous and foul are not objective criteria, Snyder said, and the policy would allow public officials to ban speech based on subjective opinions. Speech one government official might think of as boisterous, he explained by way of example, might be seen by another as passionate. 

“And I don’t know of a government agency that would prohibit people from speaking passionately about their issues,” Snyder continued. “For a government agency to determine that someone can’t speak because their speech is boisterous is to hand government the power to shut people off for almost any reason.”

Snyder emphasized that the First Amendment exists in part to protect the right of political minorities to speak in spaces regulated by a political majority that disagrees with them. 

City of Shasta Lake manager Jessaca Lugo responded to a request for comment from Shasta Scout on Friday saying she would discuss concerns related to the new policy with the city attorney. Today, City Clerk Charity Tatlow said the draft policy has been updated in response to Shasta Scout’s questions and concerns after being reviewed by the city attorney.

But Snyder, who reviewed those updates today, said the language remains problematic as it continues to reference forms of speech that are protected under the Constitution including prohibitions on “inappropriate” or “slanderous” remarks and “loud, boisterous, or profane language.”

City Clerk Tatlow said the council has not had any particular issues with boisterous commenters – unlike the tense environments typical of Shasta County board meetings in recent years. Instead the update is occurring, she said, because of the need to address issues like overflow seating, accessibility for special assistance requests, and the use and size of signs, and the distribution of documents.

“We hope that this update will encourage additional public participation,” Tatlow said, “by encouraging safety and accessibility.”

Shasta Lake’s City Council will meet to discuss the draft policy on Tuesday, September 16 at 6 pm in the council chambers located at the Larry J. Farr Community Center. 


Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.

Author

Annelise Pierce is Shasta Scout’s Editor and a Community Reporter covering government accountability, civic engagement, and local religious and political movements.

Comments (10)
  1. The Brown act allows profane language during meetings if the remarks are in connection with the item being discussed. For better or worse, it’s the ying and yang of free speech. Bet that some of the supporters of this amendment had no problems with Charlie Kirk, however…

    • LA City Council passed a resolution banning the “c” and “n” words. Perhaps SLC can narrow the scope similarly.

      • Patrick Jones was fine with letting the n word pass citing the First Amendment.

        • What does a former county official have to do with an article on free speech in Shasta Lake? Bias much?

          • Bilbo: Our coverage of Jones’ at the time supported his right to allow the n word. I’m not sure what you mean about bias but both of these topics center on free speech protected by the First Amendment so that’s the clear connection.

  2. Annelise,

    Are you attempting to smear the Shasta Couty Board by using their picture in this article? At the very least it’s deceptive.

    It is interesting that you always drag out the same first amendment attorney and tout him as a reputable source for these topics. If your claim of first amendment violations carried any weight, then your groupies would file a lawsuit and win.

    • Hi Mary: I used this photo because I took it. We rarely report live on the City of Shasta Lake Council so I don’t have any of the current council in my media folder. Also I don’t believe we’ve ever quoted this attorney before but have you read the First Amendment?

      • Please inform us when the lawsuit is filed. For future reference, most attorneys will argue almost any case for their client as long as they are getting paid.

  3. The picture you selected is Shasta County BOS.

    • True but its in the city of Shasta Lake chamber.

Comments are closed.

In your inbox every weekday morning.

Close the CTA

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING!

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Find Shasta Scout on all of your favorite platforms, including Instagram and Nextdoor.