Bangor City Council adopts resolution condemning hate speech

The Bangor City Council voted to adopt Resolve 25-314, a resolution formally condemning hate speech, prejudice, racism, xenophobia, gender discrimination and related intolerance at council meetings.

The resolution passed by roll call vote during the meeting. Earlier in the evening Councilor Beck moved to refer the item to the Advisory Committee on Racial Equity, Inclusion and Human Rights; that referral motion failed on roll call, 2 yes and 5 no. After a public-comment period in which speakers were sharply divided, the council adopted the resolution by an affirmative roll-call vote.

Why this matters: Council meetings have seen repeated disruptive public comments and slurs from remote callers and in-person attendees, and the resolution is an explicit, formal statement from the body condemning that conduct. Supporters said the measure affirms community norms and gives staff and chair guidance for handling abusive comments; opponents worried the wording could be interpreted in ways that conflict with First Amendment protections and urged more targeted process and enforcement language.

Debate among councilors focused on process. Councilor Beck argued the advisory committee should weigh in before passage to avoid a perception of haste: “If we’re serious about this, and we want this to be more than hollow words on a piece of paper, then we must do our due diligence. We must respect the committee we appointed and the work they do. Let’s send this item to them. Let them review it. Let them provide the recommendation, and let’s get this right instead of just getting it fast,” Beck said. Councilor Fish disagreed, arguing the council already had time to review the proposed language and should act promptly: “I don’t believe we have to send this to the…advisory council because I believe that we’re a democracy. We got this resolved language Friday. We had some time to discuss this or refer it, and I think it does take immediate action.” Councilor Hawes said he supported passage and recommended the council subsequently develop clear guidelines and accountability steps in partnership with the advisory committee.

Public comment reflected a broad split. Hillary Simmons said she opposed measures that might limit constitutionally protected speech and urged education and community-building as alternatives: “If we start punishing or restricting speech simply because it offends someone, we risk silencing people who speak honestly even when their opinions are uncomfortable or controversial.…Instead of passing this resolve, we should focus on education, open dialogue, and community building efforts that encourage understanding rather than restriction.”

Other speakers urged stronger enforcement measures. Mitchell Cooper, who identified disruptions by callers as ongoing, urged the council to adopt procedural tools such as identity verification and a code-of-conduct acknowledgement for remote participants: “Require cameras to be on for Zoom public comments. Implement pre registration with verified identity for remote participants. Require a code of conduct acknowledgment before joining for public comment. Institute a 3 strike rule for hate speech.” Several speakers cited recent meetings in which racial- or religion-based slurs were used during public comment and said those incidents had chilled participation.

The council’s vote: The referral motion to send the resolution to the advisory committee failed (2 yes, 5 no). The council then adopted Resolve 25-314 by unanimous roll call.

What the resolution does and does not do: According to remarks by the city attorney during debate, the resolution condemns the speech but does not itself create a criminal prohibition on speech. The attorney noted the forum is a limited public forum for city business and that meeting rules and decorum standards remain the operative constraints for managing comment periods. The resolution does not specify a new penalty schedule; several councilors asked staff to work with the advisory committee or separately to draft guidelines and enforcement steps.

Next steps: Councilors who voted for immediate passage said they intend to follow the resolution with guidelines and accountability measures worked out with the advisory committee; councilors who favored referral said they wanted that committee’s procedural input before finalizing operational steps. The council did not adopt a new enforcement policy during this meeting.

Votes at a glance: Referral to Advisory Committee on Racial Equity, Inclusion and Human Rights — motion to commit failed, 2 yes, 5 no. Passage of Resolve 25-314 — adopted (roll call affirmed).