The following Letter to the Editor was submitted for publication by David Williams
Travesty!
What occurred last night was a travesty of justice and a clear violation of the First Amendment rights. In my opinion, Amarillo, Texas continues to be in the United States of America and we live in a democratic society and neither this mayor nor any mayor should have the arbitrary right to take away citizens freedom of speech. I do not care if the mayor garner’s votes; it still does not make it right to single out one person when many others clapped. Decorum, like art, is in the eye of the beholder, and whether applause is disruptive is debatable depending on the circumstance. What is clear, however, is the need for our current council to study the meaning of “Disruptive vs Constructive”.
City council meetings are not talk shows, talent shows or game shows. They deserve a higher level of public decorum. They are serious business. You don’t see constant disruption allowed in Congress, the state legislature, courtrooms, and many other public hearing venues. It diminishes the importance and adds a level of frivolity to city council meetings that is inappropriate for the serious business that takes place there.
A city council has considerable latitude to establish and enforce rules of decorum to control disruptive public speakers at open meetings. The cornerstones of enforceable rules of decorum are reasonableness and viewpoint neutrality — that is to say, the rules cannot favor either side. Even with rules of decorum in place, city council members must be prepared to tolerate coarsely phrased criticism of themselves and of the city’s policies, procedures, programs, services, and employees.
Of course, no city council should ever be confronted with a situation where a person or group of people willfully interrupts a meeting such that orderly conduct of the meeting is unfeasible, and order cannot be restored by their removal. Should that worst-case scenario occurs, however, the city council has authority to “clear the room” and continue in session.
It appears we may need a history lesson review in the US Constitution First amendment rights.
“Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws.
Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.
Despite the exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of America”
This column is provided as general information, not as legal advice. The law is constantly evolving, and attorneys can and do disagree about what the law requires. Local folks interested in determining how the law applies in a situation should consult their local agency attorneys.
