You're violating my First Amendment rights": Arizona woman goes viral for getting arrested at city council meeting
(notthebee.com)
🚔 Crime & Democrats 💸
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (43)
sorted by:
This is some BS right here. This is NOT 1st amendment anything. This is a city forum with rules. There are forums for bringing up concerns of hers, but clearly the rules of the city council meeting outline not using that particular forum for complaints against individuals. Salary of an individual I would argue falls within this. Grow up people. If I walked into a conference at work and started complaining about something not on topic (as this city council forum is for policy issues) I'd be canned if I pushed it. People confuse 1st amendment rights often and this is the case here. Hate me for this opinion, but this is going viral out of ignorance and people wanting to get behind the underdog. I don't care if someone agrees with rules or not, rules in a controlled public forum are there to keep things productive. This may be a fine line, sure - police response and charges are crap, but the bottom line is she chose the wrong place to lodge her complaint.
I understand your point, but IMO God-given rights should be construed as broadly as possible.
I listened to the substance of the woman’s concerns (what little she was able to get out before it became an argument about civil rights). She was complaining about lack of response on FOIA requests. Seems a legit topic to bring to the attention of the city council.
Ya, I'm not trying to be a jerk with my take on it, but in order to be heard you need to use the appropriate tact in any situation. This lady was complaining about the salary of someone while not performing FOIA requests... along the lines of "this person isn't doing their job" as opposed to "the City" isn't adhering to FOIA requests. There's a finite but critical difference involved.
Salary of an individual or salary of a paid position? I'd wager that we don't know all of the facts, but I do know that in a gray area like this I'm not going to side with the local government.
While its true rules are there to keep things productive, they are also often there to protect the power of the power hungry weenies that have made their way into office.
EDIT: Downdoot not mine, FWIW.
He’s not the boss of her. Why not let her speak?
To show her who's boss. That's what public 'servants' do these days.
Ya, downvotes were expected. There would be ways to bring up salary of a paid position outside of this forum, and if it were brought up in an appropriate manor I'm sure the same response wouldn't happen. But how much a position (grey area and the full context we're missing) vs. a person is the focus we don't know. She, however, is using it as an argument to not getting FOIA requests completed. And don't get me wrong, that Skip Hall guy could have handled it better for sure.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. That's a lot of long words to say "the government can silence dissent with brute force any time it wants"; which is a lot long words to say "I❤️ tyrrany".
You need to rethink your whole mindset on this. Screw the rules. The solution is the 2nd
This comment is the BS
"Rules" by public officials are not law. The constitution is there to keep these public officials in check and remind them that their "rules" hold no weight. Getting fired from a job for talking off topic is completely different than a public official, working for their constituents, silencing and arresting those with dissenting opinions. I don't really think that's a good analogy. No hate towards you or anything, but I 100% disagree. This isnt a private business, this is a public official who's boss is the people.