UPDATE: Los Angeles City Council approves controversial new rules targeting disruptive speakers

1
539

The Los Angeles City Council has approved a controversial new set of rules that rewriting how the public airs grievances before elected officials.

The rules, which have caused controversy at City Council meetings for the past three weeks, are designed to curb disruptive speakers who often use racist and sexist language. Public speakers who are disruptive can be removed currently, but they often return for other meetings that same day.

The rules would allow that member of the public to be excluded from further meetings for that day and for the following business day, if they are expelled from any other meeting later on the day of their first offense, or during any of the following three business days.

If that same person disrupts a meeting in the three days following that second expulsion, they’ll be barred from city meetings for three days, and then for six if disruptions continue afterwards. The maximum period of exclusion is six days.

City leaders could soon face lawsuits, including one that could potentially erupt in the near future, over the rules.

It’s no surprise that members of the public are lining up to sue the deeply unpopular proposal. The past two weeks have seen dozens of public speakers comment on the rules, with most calling the proposal an infringement of First Amendment rights.

These changes would take effect Jan. 1, 2019. The proposal needs a two-thirds margin for it to pass.

1 COMMENT

  1. Hi, Hugo: Their motion is basically dead on arrival, tomorrow (Tues. Oct. 9, 2018). Yeah, it’s getting kinda ugly, with a couple of the public comment speakers; but the council motion is in violation of a Federal ruling, that they lost, in 2013. They KNOW it’s a violation. I understand their frustration. I warned them for YEARS this would be the blow back result if they didn’t settle with me. They were arrogant and spent millions and millions of city dollars fighting a LOSING battle. And, now…they are getting what I warned of. My lawsuit was about OTHER VERY RELEVANT ISSUES — in TRUE censorship fashion. It wasn’t about this kinda stuff…but, this is the side result (collateral damage). And, sadly, they are going to have to live with it for about 10 minutes per meeting. But, they spend 1 hour 30 mins, typically, on presentations and ass kissing. KARMA can be a bitch. SUMMARY: They ain’t gonna pass it, y’all. And, never will. They can’t. It’s VAGUE=NO WHERE do they DEFINE what constitutes a disruption; and that is unconstitutional.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here