Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to respect First Amendment after past public‑comment removals
Summary
A Lewisburg resident told the council he believes the no-personal-attacks rule has been applied selectively and cited court precedent supporting protection for critical speech during public comment.
Joe Bradford, a Lewisburg resident, used the citizen-input period to say he had observed what he described as selective enforcement of the council’s “no personal attacks” rule during public comment. Bradford asked that his remarks be entered into the meeting minutes and provided a copy to the city recorder.
Bradford recounted prior incidents in which speakers who criticized elected officials were removed from meetings while other speakers were allowed to finish. He referenced Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, saying the court requires a person’s speech at a city council meeting to be disruptive before that person may be silenced or removed. Bradford said requests to remove officials or criticism that is calmly delivered does not meet the legal standard for removal.
Why it matters: Public-comment rules set the boundaries for how residents can address elected officials; questions about selective enforcement can raise concerns about procedural fairness and civil‑liberties compliance.
Direct quote: "My concern is the no personal attacks rule is being applied selectively to speech with which the mayor disagrees," Bradford said. He added: "The courts have upheld the right of the public to criticize the actions of public officials during public comments so long as their speech is delivered in a manner that is not disorderly."
Ending: Bradford requested his comments be entered into the meeting minutes; council moved on to the consent agenda after public comment concluded.
