Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Forum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over protests at Detroit Lakes Veterans Memorial Park pits free-speech advocates against veterans and nearby businesses
Summary
Dozens spoke at the city council public forum about weekly demonstrations at the Veterans Memorial Park. Veterans and residents called the demonstrations disrespectful and disruptive; demonstrators and organizers defended the protests as peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights. City attorney advised the council that content-based restrictions would likely fail in court.
A sustained public forum at the Detroit Lakes City Council meeting on April 20 brought sharply divided views over weekly demonstrations at Veterans Memorial Park, with veterans, residents and business owners urging restrictions and demonstrators and allied civic groups defending their right to protest.
Dave Nyson, regional commander for Disabled Veterans, said the demonstrations were harming the appearance and dignity of the memorial. "It is also extremely disrespectful to the individuals that gave their lives that served this country," Nyson said, describing trampling of turf and people standing on benches at the memorial.
Other veterans and residents echoed concerns about damage to landscaping, lost parking for nearby businesses and the emotional impact on families who use the memorial. "This park was designed to honor servicemen," veteran Michael Newstead said. "I feel it is not honoring veterans by allowing the shenanigans that take place every week at this location."
Organizers and participants in the demonstrations, including representatives of Indivisible and allied groups, said their events are peaceful, include veterans, and address civic concerns. "We were recommended in a public park," Indivisible organizer Kathy Coyle said, noting the group's effort to follow police guidance and remain behind the park fence.
City Attorney Charlie advised the council that Veterans Memorial Park is a public forum and that courts narrowly allow content-based limits on speech. "The people who are having these demonstrations are exercising their First Amendment rights," Charlie told the council, and content-based prohibitions would likely lead to litigation the city would not prevail in.
Council members and staff discussed time, place and manner restrictions (noise, parking, amplified sound, and safety around Highway 10). Staff noted that the city's public-gathering ordinance is tailored to events such as concerts and fairs and may not apply directly to recurring demonstrations; police and staff continue to monitor and to enforce content-neutral rules such as parking and noise limits where applicable.
Several speakers urged compromise: limit demonstrators to other visible public locations to preserve the park as a memorial, or adopt specific, content‑neutral rules to protect the memorial and nearby businesses. Others argued that a memorial situated on a public street corner is precisely a public forum where speech is constitutionally protected.
What’s next: The council heard many viewpoints but took no ordinance or policy action at the meeting. Staff recommended continued reliance on content‑neutral enforcement (parking, safety and noise rules) and warned that a ban on demonstrations at the memorial would likely be overturned if challenged in court. Council members asked staff and police to continue monitoring operations and to report options for narrow, content-neutral measures if appropriate.
