Thread

1. p_j_w · 1790179654 · focus · HN ↗

   >The cop said, “You’re under arrest,” grabbed her arms, and pulled her out of the room. “I can do this all night. I get paid by the hour,” the cop added.

   Two sentences showing precisely why no one can trust the police. Not only are they completely unaccountable, but they will trample your first amendment rights and do so with smug amusement in full public view. These are the kinds of people we're supposed to be happy to give massive surveillance power to?

   1. Manuel_D · 1790179821 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. LazyMans · 1790179983 · focus · HN ↗

         Exactly. We have an individual that started doing this constantly in our local neighborhood meetings. It makes the entire meeting so dreadful attendance began to drop off. Fortunately we finally acted and threatened to bar and trespass them if they didn't stop. Complete lack of respect for the process and others.

         1. p_j_w · 1790180713 · focus · HN ↗

            Did you read the article?

            1. LazyMans · 1790196585 · focus · HN ↗

               Yes. An individual with a lack of regard for the process trying to talk about flock in a slot allocated for a separate topic. People don't just get to make up their own rules in these meetings. When people do this, it destroys their credibility, the credibility of whatever they are trying to speak on, and is disrespectful to all the people in attendance.
         2. 0c3ca83 · 1790180787 · focus · HN ↗

            Your only other submitted story this year has been promoting Flock's "new safety standards. Most of your recent posts are trying to promote flock. I wonder if you actually attend any local neighborhood meetings.

            1. LazyMans · 1790196646 · focus · HN ↗

               Many, hyper local as well as NPU level. They're quite powerful meetings.
         3. [deleted] · 1790182247 · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

      2. tranceylc · 1790180050 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

         1. adrianN · 1790180301 · focus · HN ↗

            Your comment would be much better without the last sentence.

            1. bigyabai · 1790181433 · focus · HN ↗

               Nah. Flock is a YC business, and they've been extremely insecure about the press they get (versus, say Palantir).

               It's about time that we start naming-and-shaming people that promote surveillance using strawmen and scapegoats.

               1. bigstrat2003 · 1790182666 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yes, in fact it would be better without the last sentence. If one wishes to have a productive discussion, assuming bad faith on the part of your interlocutor is not the way to go about it. That just leads to flame wars.

                  1. bigyabai · 1790199074 · focus · HN ↗

                     They didn't assume bad faith, misanthropy was also offered as a possibility. Which seems like an appropriate assumption if it's not bad-faith or a cultural misunderstanding.

                     We've all seen YC companies that send their marketing brigade into threads where their businesses get well-deserved criticism. HN doesn't necessarily punish bad-faith users, your account won't be banned if you "accidentally" fail to disclose your affiliation with a startup or business. They're up against green accounts, entrepreneurial apologists and zombie accounts that last posted in 2015 hacked with Pastebin credentials. If you comment on a controversial thread, half the time a throwaway account will ragebait you with nonsense and then replace their comments with "." after 3 hours to make you look crazy. There are people on this website that are particularly motivated to disrupt particular discussions.

                     You just can't ever rule out bad faith in these conditions. It's not smart to assume bad faith either, but there are too many conflicts of interest to dismiss the possibility.

                  2. joquarky · 1790202189 · focus · HN ↗

                     Bad faith has become the more reasonable assumption in the past decade.
      3. burkaman · 1790180054 · focus · HN ↗

         There is nothing in the article about exceeding allotted time, and from the video it seems like she had just started speaking.

         1. dekhn · 1790181263 · focus · HN ↗

            The article does have some context:

            """The move passed 5 - 3, the crowd shouted at city leaders, and Schrag ordered citizens to clear the room and shut off cameras recording the event. As people left, police detained and ticketed Noah Powell. Later in the evening Mia Heider tried to speak out about Flock during public comments about a housing issue. Police arrested her while Schrag looked on. “Sorry ma’m,” the mayor said as police led Heider away in handcuffs."""

            Without defending anybody, it is generally disruptive to talk about a topic that is not on the current agenda but opinions differ on whether that can lead to an arrest. If you've ever run one of these council meetings, you'll quickly see there are folks who just want to disrupt the process or make it go very slowly (these things often wrap up after midnight).

            1. text0404 · 1790181673 · focus · HN ↗

               According to TFA, the "folks who just want to disrupt the process" seem to be the city council and the mayor, not their constituents who came to give public comments about something that affects them:

               > The council was set to vote on Jensons’ proposed review on Monday and hear comments from the community. But when the resolution came up during the meeting, Mayor Schrag immediately pushed to send it to a committee and avoid public comment.

               In a democracy, it's generally disruptive to prevent constituents from petitioning for redress of grievances.

               1. dekhn · 1790182168 · focus · HN ↗

                  Is saying the following (different person said this, but was also arrested) a petition for redress of grievances?

                  """“Well, I said: ‘Jeff Schrag is a cuck.’ I said: ‘Fuck you Jeff.’ I said: ‘Worthless’ and then, also, the final thing I said was: ‘Jeff Schrag has a tiny, stinky, cock,’” Powell explained. “I just let myself get handcuffed and let them do whatever power trip they wanted to do. Got my ticket and left.”"""

                  I like democracy and I want people to have their voice heard but city council meetings are about getting business done, and they don't guarantee that every single person will be able to speak at length about their grievances.

                  1. text0404 · 1790182618 · focus · HN ↗

                     > Is saying the following (different person said this, but was also arrested) a petition for redress of grievances?

                     Yes, and it's protected by the first amendment.

                     > they don't guarantee that every single person will be able to speak at length about their grievances.

                     In this case, they didn't let anyone speak at any length about their grievances. Hence this article.

                     1. dekhn · 1790183466 · focus · HN ↗

                        No, insulting a person is not a petition for redress of grievances. To do so, you must actually state a grievance. In this case Powell just wanted to insult the city council.

                        1. text0404 · 1790184137 · focus · HN ↗

                           That's Powell. Heider was also arrested and prevented from petitioning for redress of grievances, going back to my point:

                           > In a democracy, it's generally disruptive to prevent constituents from petitioning for redress of grievances.

                           The real "disruption" here is the fact that the council and the mayor refuse to listen to their constituents, not that some of those constituents are angry about it.

                           1. dekhn · 1790185914 · focus · HN ↗

                              Right- if you read the context of our thread, I started talking about Powell.

                              I think Heider has a much better case, were she to try to sue the city council (which I think is a waste of time if her goal is to prevent Flock cameras), but even then, the laws and cases around people who disrupt city councils are complex, and if the city lost... it would j ust end up costing tax payers more money.

                              Are you sure the intent of the council was to specifically refuse to listen?

                              1. joquarky · 1790201635 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Perhaps they should not block public comments if they don't want to cost taxpayers more money.
            2. burkaman · 1790182986 · focus · HN ↗

               I agree it is disruptive, obviously that was the point, but it is not "depriving the rest of the people of their abilities to comment". Had she been allowed to finish her comment, nobody would have been deprived of anything.

               1. dekhn · 1790186375 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yes, they'd be deprived of time and the ability to comment on their own interests (these meetings often drag past midnight due to excessive comments).

                  1. joquarky · 1790201743 · focus · HN ↗

                     So what? They get paid to be civil servants. I've worked a continuous 40 hours fixing a firewall so the rest of the employees could work. It's part of the job.
         2. Manuel_D · 1790181695 · focus · HN ↗

            That statement was directed about the trend of posting videos of people getting dragged away from council meetings, in general, not this particular story.

            In this particular story, Heider was using the comment period on an unrelated issue to voice her complaints about Flock. Hence her removal once it became clear she was not talking about the issue at hand.

            > Heider explained that she waited until the public comment period for a different issue, filled out a form to talk, and then got up to deliver a written statement about Flock cameras.

            At a high level it's the same thing: people trying to use public comment periods for protests, rather than actually engage with the topic.

            Consider this: what if at every public comments periods, anti-abortion activists incessantly took the stand at unrelated meetings to rant about abortion providers? This becomes so pervasive that good faith community members who actually want to engage with the topic at hand have reduced opportunity to speak. Of course removal of the former is justified if they refuse to abide by the rules of the council meetings.

            1. G0lg0thvn · 1790181828 · focus · HN ↗

               Really uneducated argument considering you’re just ignoring half of the context.

               1. Manuel_D · 1790181953 · focus · HN ↗

                  What context am I ignoring?

                  1. text0404 · 1790182218 · focus · HN ↗

                     > Dozens of people showed up to the Springfield City Council Meeting on September 22 with plans to let city leaders know how they felt about the city’s use of automated license plate readers. There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.

                     1. Manuel_D · 1790182314 · focus · HN ↗

                        That doesn't make make it permissible to try and use the comments periods on other meetings to talk about Flock. The point remains, she was not removed for simply voicing opposition to Flock cameras. The was arrested and removed for trying to derail an unrelated meeting.

                        Someone going on the stand to rant about abortion during a meeting on sidewalk codes would similarly get removed.

                        1. text0404 · 1790183792 · focus · HN ↗

                           The person saying your comment is ignorant probably doesn't care about the procedural rules. Instead, it's because you're placing disproportionate emphasis on citizens following meeting rules instead of being concerned that they're denied the ability to speak about policies that directly affect them in a democracy.

                           1. Manuel_D · 1790184997 · focus · HN ↗

                              But they're not being denied the ability to speak. Heider can go hold a protest against Flock in public.

                              She's only being denied the ability to speak in the very specific circumstance of a public comment period on sidewalk codes.

                              1. text0404 · 1790191929 · focus · HN ↗

                                 > But they're not being denied the ability to speak

                                 From TFA: "There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue."

                                 > Heider can go hold a protest against Flock in public

                                 A protest isn't an equivalent substitute for a forum created for citizens to petition their democratically elected representatives. She and the others were there to discuss a specific policy that was supposed to be discussed at that time, and they were denied at the last minute. The opening salvo was the city council refusing to hear public comments, which many see as the main issue (and not that she broke a procedural rule).

                                 1. Manuel_D · 1790196308 · focus · HN ↗

                                    You're entitled to freedom of speech. You're not entitled to an audience. She can petition her elected representatives elsewhere, just not during a public comments session on sidewalk codes.

                                    If the community is frustrated with the city council's decisions on public comments sections they can vote for different city council members.

                                    1. bigyabai · 1790198039 · focus · HN ↗

                                       If the city council is frustrated with public comment, that's not an excuse to ignore their constituency. They can perfectly well deliberate sidewalks after respecting her allotted time.

                                       By selectively shielding topics that the public feels strongly about, they are fomenting the conditions for more extreme petitions. This was not a private meeting, arresting her was wrong.

                                       1. Manuel_D · 1790200979 · focus · HN ↗

                                          Except allowing people to take up a full two minutes, or however long the allotted time is, discussing unrelated topics deprive people who want to make an on-topic comment of that opportunity.

                                          Let's say the council eventually does schedule a public comment people to discuss Flock. Then anti-abortion activists flood the meeting, and take up all the speaking time ranting about abortion thus preventing anyone from voicing their criticisms of Flock. Is that a good outcome?

                                          1. bigyabai · 1790202384 · focus · HN ↗

                                             Unless there were sidewalk enthusiasts that were being denied their time, I don't see what relevance this comparison has. She was arrested for a legitimate use of her allotment.

                                             1. Manuel_D · 1790202750 · focus · HN ↗

                                                No, she was arrested for illegitimate use of her allotment. It doesn't actually matter if there were other people concerned with the sidewalk code, a public comments period is not an opportunity to soapbox about unrelated topics.

                                                If the city doesn't uniformly enforce these restrictions, then when the anti abortion folks try to flood the meeting and get removed they'll complain that they're being selectively targeted.

                                    2. text0404 · 1790199636 · focus · HN ↗

                                       > She can petition her elected representatives elsewhere

                                       Why would she need to do this outside an official channel that was created specifically for petitioning elected representatives? She shouldn't have to.

                                       > If the community is frustrated with the city council's decisions on public comments sections they can vote for different city council members.

                                       I'm sure they'll be doing that. In the meantime, the city council is voting on an extremely controversial technology which will be paid for, installed, and operated years before a future council can dismantle it.

                                       1. Manuel_D · 1790200540 · focus · HN ↗

                                          You keep ignoring the point that this wasn't the channel for this purpose. This was a public comment period for changes to sidewalk codes.

                                          Let's say the council eventually does schedule a comments section to discuss Flock. But then anti-abortion activists flood the meeting and use up all the time ranting about the evils of abortion. They monopolize the meeting so that people who want to criticize Flock don't get the opportunity to do so. Is that a good outcome?

                                          1. text0404 · 1790200652 · focus · HN ↗

                                             The "channel" I'm referring to is the public comments period for the policy related to Flock, and more broadly the meeting structure and public comments periods created by the city government.

                                             Edit for your edit:

                                             Your hypothetical isn't equivalent. Residents weren't allowed to give comments on the Flock policy. That's the crux of the entire issue; the public comments period was circumvented by the mayor and council.

                                             1. Manuel_D · 1790202268 · focus · HN ↗

                                                When was the last time the council held a public comments period on abortion? You seem to operating under the assumption that such a comments period on that topic has taken place recently, but I don't see any evidence of that

                                                Let's assume they have not scheduled any such comments section on that topic. Are the anti abortion activists then justified in flooding the public comments period and depriving people of the opportunity to criticize Flock during that period?

                                                1. text0404 · 1790203510 · focus · HN ↗

                                                   I'm not getting into the weeds on anti-abortion activism. Your hypothetical is not equivalent because the "activists" in this case were not allowed to speak about the policy in question in the first place.

                                                   You see order/decorum as the more important issue, and I see the ability to petition government officials as more important. Residents showed up at the date and time that the officials expected them to, in order to discuss a policy during the time allotted for public comments; instead, officials didn't allow residents to speak. The violation of a procedural rule pales in comparison to the violation of the community's trust in their elected officials and the democratic process.

                                                   1. [deleted] · 1790203800 · focus · HN ↗

                                                      [deleted]

                                                   2. Manuel_D · 1790204105 · focus · HN ↗

                                                      Activists are able to speak about Flock and criticize Flock - just not at public comments meeting on unrelated topics. They can still protest in other public spaces, they can organize anti-Flock marches, there are so, so many other opportunities to speak about the city's policy on Flock. The statement that, "the 'activists' in this case were not allowed to speak about the policy in question in the first place" is just not remotely true. Not unless you meant to narrow down this statement to public comments periods, specifically.

                                                      > Your hypothetical is not equivalent because the "activists" in this case were not allowed to speak about the policy in question in the first place.

                                                      Unless there has been a recent public comments period on abortion, then yes they are equivalent: neither anti-Flock nor anti-abortion activists have had the opportunity to voice their opinions to the city in a public comments period.

                                                      1. text0404 · 1790204318 · focus · HN ↗

                                                         I'm aware that people can protest. However, protests happen when a system breaks down. The system in question here is the official channel (the public comments section during a Flock policy discussion) that was circumvented by elected representatives who found their community's concerns to be inconvenient. When elected representatives refuse to hear their constituency's concerns, it means the system is broken. Most people in this thread are incensed about that, regardless of if Heider broke a procedural rule.

                                                         > is just not remotely true. Not unless you meant to narrow down this statement to public comments periods, specifically.

                                                         Yes, I mean the official channel that was created specifically for the residents to discuss the policy in question with their elected representatives.

                                                         You don't need to take my word for it, here's a sympathetic councilmember:

                                                         > Jenson spoke before the vote to push the resolution to a committee. “All I’m trying to do is get people answers to some real questions that they’ve brought to us for months. And it’s a shame that it comes to this sort of, I guess, theater that I’m a part of to try to get those answers,” he said. “This isn’t how government is supposed to run. It’s just disappointing. And we’re not even allowing folks to speak who clearly came out to share their voices tonight.”

                                                         1. Manuel_D · 1790205226 · focus · HN ↗

                                                            You can disapprove of the council's actions all you want - I don't really care about how much esteem or lack thereof you have in the city council. The point I'm making is: Hyder's rights are not being "trampled", as the root comment claims, any more than an anti-abortion activist that might have wanted use this comments period on sidewalk codes to voice their feelings on abortion. What happened to Hyder was completely normal: someone tries to abuse the public comments period to soapbox about an unrelated topic, and that person is removed.

                                                            The same logic you're using to justify Hyder's action here would also condone anti-abortion activists hijacking meeting after meeting to voice support their cause. But that's obviously an untenable situation. So, what then? Do you want the city council engage in selective application of procedural rules, and let Hyder and other anti-Flock activists take up time while anti-abortion activists are denied that opportunity? That would be an actual speech issue: time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are permissible but they cannot be selectively applied.

                                                            1. text0404 · 1790205742 · focus · HN ↗

                                                               > You can disapprove of the council's actions all you want

                                                               I do. Turns out even the council itself disapproves of their own actions.

                                                               > Hyder's rights are not being "trampled"

                                                               I wasn't claiming that her rights were trampled, I was saying that your original comment was viewed as ignorant by another poster because you're focusing solely on decorum and not the fact that elected representatives were attempting to circumvent inconvenient public comments about a controversial topic. I provided you with that context the poster claimed you ignored, because we're discussing the unmitigated proliferation of mass surveillance and not procedural rules for city council meetings.

                                                               Again, your hypothetical is not equivalent because it assumes that the "activists" a. had their own public comments section, and b. they monopolized the entire meeting. Neither of those things happened here.

                                                               1. Manuel_D · 1790206066 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                  > Again, your hypothetical is not equivalent because it assumes that the "activists" a. had their own public comments section, and b. they monopolized the entire meeting. Neither of those things happened here.

                                                                  What do you mean "it assumes that the 'activists' a. had their own public comments section"? In this scenario, neither the anti-flock nor anti-abortion activists appear to have had a public comments section on their respective topics. You're the one assuming that anti-abortion activists did have their own public comments section, which I cannot find any evidence for.

                                                                  Whether or not they "monopolize" the meeting is just a question of degrees - just assume that the anti-abortion activists dominate the meeting to the same degree as the Flock critics in this scenario.

                                                                  1. text0404 · 1790206504 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                     I'm not going to engage with your hypothetical nor do I think it's incumbent on me to provide you evidence of anything related to it. If you want to ground this in reality, we can go back to discussing the facts of the actual situation which occurred in the article:

                                                                     > There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.

                                                                     1. Manuel_D · 1790206937 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                        Of course you don't want to engage with the hypothetical: it highlights that you selectively condone disregarding the rules and procedures on public comments is based on your support for the person making off-topic comments. Obviously we can't just let anyone make off-topic comments, because then it'll just be a free-for-all of people soapboxing for unrelated topics. But Hyder gets a pass because you agree with her. It's not some principled free speech position, it's just partisanship.

                                                                        Disregard for procedure and rules sounds fine when it's people you agree with that engage in this behavior. But when you're the one who doesn't get a chance to speak because of people ranting about abortion in the meeting that's supposed to be your opportunity to make your voice heard to the city council I bet your views on procedure will flip 180 degrees!

                                                                        1. text0404 · 1790207013 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                           [citation needed]

                                                                           Nah man, I just think you're trying to straw man this conversation and ignoring the facts of the article, which is coincidentally what someone else said at the beginning of this thread.

                                                                           1. Manuel_D · 1790207401 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                              The facts of the article is that Hyder made off-topic comments and was removed accordingly. Just like what would happen if someone made anti-abortion comments during this meeting on sidewalk codes.

                                                                              What I'm ignoring is that apparently we're supposed to see it as an injustice when the government evenly enforces its rules, instead of selectively enforcing them to permit off-topic comments when those comments express the "correct" views.

                                                                              1. text0404 · 1790207479 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                                 > The facts of the article is that Hyder made off-topic comments and was removed accordingly.

                                                                                 Once again using a hypothetical and ignoring the context of why she made "off-topic" comments, which is what people are upset about. Should we just keep going in circles? Your turn.

                                                                                 1. Manuel_D · 1790207752 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                                    The context of why she made the off-topic comments is that there was no scheduled public comments period with ALPRs as the topic.

                                                                                    Similarly, there seems to be no scheduled public comments period with abortion as the topic.

                                                                                    Of course, neither of these grants anti-flock or anti-abortion activists the right to make off-topic comments on unrelated meetings. Like I said, apparently it's an injustice when the government evenly applies its rules.

                                                                                    1. text0404 · 1790207848 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                                       > The context of why she made the off-topic comments is that there was no scheduled public comments period with ALPRs as the topic.

                                                                                       Quoting the article:

                                                                                       > Dozens of people showed up to the Springfield City Council Meeting on September 22 with plans to let city leaders know how they felt about the city’s use of automated license plate readers. There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.

                                                                                       > “This isn’t how government is supposed to run. It’s just disappointing. And we’re not even allowing folks to speak who clearly came out to share their voices tonight.”

                                                                                       1. Manuel_D · 1790207977 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                                          As I wrote, the city council did not schedule a public comments period on the issue of ALPRs. I'm not sure why you think anything in your quote contradicts what I wrote in the previous comment.

                                                                                          1. text0404 · 1790208926 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                                             They don't explicitly schedule public comments periods in the agendas in Springfield, MO.

                                                                                             The city's rules for addressing Council also list Resolutions among the categories open to public comment. Placing the Flock resolution on the agenda automatically includes a scheduled public comment on it too. Residents were required to register and they did. Before those speakers were called, the council sent the resolution to committee, preventing them from speaking.

                                                                                             1. Manuel_D · 1790209093 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                                                Uh huh. Regardless of your semantic quibbling about the word "schedule", at the end of the day there was neither the opportunity to make a public comment about abortion nor to make one about ALPRs. If someone went up to this comment section and started to rant about abortion they would be appropriately removed - just like Hyde was.

                                                                                                But that's an injustice! Hyde should get to flout the rules. Because her position is a "correct" one. Because it's wrong for the government to evenly enforce the rules on public comment periods, and instead they ought to selectively enforce the rules to your liking.

                                                                                                There's nothing more to be said here. You're just repeating the same talking points you've said in this comment chain.

                                                                                                1. text0404 · 1790209260 · focus · HN ↗

                                                                                                   > Regardless of your semantic quibbling about the word "schedule"

                                                                                                   That was the crux of your latest argument dude. That weird one where you tried to tie this to anti-abortion activists.

                                                                                                   > Because it's wrong for the government to evenly enforce the rules on public comment periods, and instead they ought to selectively enforce the rules to your liking.

                                                                                                   Keep straw-manning! I believe in you!

                                                                                                   > There's nothing more to be said here. You're just repeating the same talking points you've said in this comment chain.

                                                                                                   Yes, I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink...

                                    3. joquarky · 1790202023 · focus · HN ↗

                                       > She can petition her elected representatives elsewhere

                                       And then she will be told that they are busy and that petitioning should be reserved for city council meetings.

                                       Have you never dealt with government bureaucracy?

                                       1. Manuel_D · 1790202615 · focus · HN ↗

                                          And? The point remains: freedom of speech is not a guarantee that you'll have an audience. Like it or not, the city council has no obligation to grant an audience to her. That's probably bad for their reelection campaign, though, and like I said she can campaign for a challenger next election.
         3. paulddraper · 1790181848 · focus · HN ↗

            The time was for speaking about building development codes.

            Contrary to what some seem to believe, public discussions are not open-mic night.

            1. JKCalhoun · 1790182029 · focus · HN ↗

               public

               discussions

               I guess I don't follow.

               1. dekhn · 1790183749 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yes, you don't.

                  We don't live in a world where words literally mean what they say without nuance or context. We live in a world where "public discussion" does not mean "all the people who want to talk about a topic of interest can disrupt a city business meeting". We also live in a world where the city council can table (US meaning) a discussion by sending it to committee.

                  Have you been to city council meetings, especially in places like Berkeley? They often go well past midnight and are filled with people just endlessly postponing important votes. These are business meetings that follow an agenda and the leaders have a significant amount of power to move the process along.

                  1. Manuel_D · 1790196243 · focus · HN ↗

                     You're entitled to freedom of speech. You're not entitled to an audience. If the community is frustrated with the city council's decisions on public comments sections they can vote for different city council members.
               2. paulddraper · 1790266291 · focus · HN ↗

                  While the discussions on council actions are accessible to the public, they have specific topics.

                  You can't just walk up and start promoting your coffee bar, or complain about how loud the neighbor’s dog are.

                  You can speak out about all those things -- the First Amendment protects that -- but not at whatever public city council meeting you want.

            2. [deleted] · 1790182318 · focus · HN ↗

               [deleted]

      4. ethagnawl · 1790180154 · focus · HN ↗

         > When someone exceed their allotted time during a public comments period, that person is depriving the rest of the people of their abilities to comment.

         Except ... nowhere in the article does it say that Heider exceeded her allotted time.

         1. jacobgkau · 1790181795 · focus · HN ↗

            She exceeded the allotted time to speak about the topic of Flock cameras, by starting to talk about them at all during the portion of the meeting about a housing issue. These meetings are about specific topics, not an "every citizen gets X minutes at the podium" free-for-all.

            1. [deleted] · 1790182437 · focus · HN ↗

               [deleted]

      5. ChiperSoft · 1790180196 · focus · HN ↗

         She said three sentences. What was her allotted time, five seconds?
      6. FireBeyond · 1790180228 · focus · HN ↗

         Sure. And what crime was committed in doing so?
      7. LPisGood · 1790180322 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

         1. [deleted] · 1790180605 · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

         2. p_j_w · 1790180743 · focus · HN ↗

            Did you read the article?
      8. sippingabonedry · 1790181885 · focus · HN ↗

         Your comment was shadow banned, and it's unclear why.
   2. ostensible · 1790180733 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. someonebaggy · 1790180802 · focus · HN ↗

         Not really? I don't see any part of the first amendment that says anything about middle fingers.
      2. ElevenLathe · 1790180811 · focus · HN ↗

         What could you possibly mean by this?
      3. cucumber3732842 · 1790180838 · focus · HN ↗

         Flipping various members of your government the bird has probably been ruled free speech up and down every federal district in the country at this point. The Supreme court affirmed it at least once, maybe two or three times now.
      4. dmos62 · 1790180845 · focus · HN ↗

         The implication is that holding up middle-fingers is illegal?

         1. ostensible · 1790181264 · focus · HN ↗

            The middle finger itself is protected speech. It does not create immunity for disruptive conduct at a public meeting, and omitting the conduct immediately before the arrest is misleading.

            She got what she deserved. You can criticize. You cannot disrupt a public meeting and abuse people from the floor.

            1. pesus · 1790181778 · focus · HN ↗

               To be clear, you think someone being loud in a public meeting deserves to be violently dragged from the room because you're offended by it? What other speech do you find violent removal worthy?

               Edit: I was shadow banned for my comments in this thread. You have been warned - no dissent against Flock (YC17) allowed.

               1. dekhn · 1790182450 · focus · HN ↗

                  The way you write is very accusatory and has very simiplified logic.

                  Many of us can be sympathetic while also knowing that disrupting a city council meeting is usually not an effective form of protest.

                  1. pesus · 1790182637 · focus · HN ↗

                     Maybe you should direct this comment towards the person I responded to and their litany of comments, because this applies far more there. I am far less concerned about hand wringing over being slightly impolite to people advocating for violent violation of people protesting the police state.

                     Edit: this comment officially got me shadow banned and I can no longer comment. The irony and hypocrisy is off the charts. Don't offend the mods or their friends, people. Only they are allowed to get "emotional" and advocate for violence.

                     1. dekhn · 1790183027 · focus · HN ↗

                        The person you're replying to are making factual comments based on experience. You are not; you are working from emotion, and interpreting the article in an unrealistic way.

                        1. chaps · 1790184987 · focus · HN ↗

                           Out of curiosity, have you ever been arrested?

                           1. dekhn · 1790185761 · focus · HN ↗

                              No, I have not. But also, why does that matter? I would fully expect to be arrested if I was civilly disobedient.

                              1. chaps · 1790186559 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Just trying to gauge what your experience is with law enforcement. You seem interested in having a facts based conversation so I think it's important to understand where you're coming from first.

                                 Do you think all forms of civil disobedience are worthy of arrest? Asking genuinely.

                                 1. dekhn · 1790188485 · focus · HN ↗

                                    My experience with law enforcement is limited to getting a ticket for using the commuter lane.

                                    The question you're asking is a subtle one. To the extent I can make an absolute statment, it's likely many forms of civil disobedience are not worthy of arrest, but the person being disobedient has to expect the possibility of being arrested anyway (and then possibly getitng a day in court). Note in this case the individual was charged with disrupting the peace, given a ticket, and released- more or less what I'd expect to happen in a case like this.

                                    1. chaps · 1790189455 · focus · HN ↗

                                       Got it. Couple more questions:

                                       - Have you ever spoken at a public meeting? How'd your experience go?

                                       - Do you think the person thought they had zero possibility of getting arrested for that?

                                       1. dekhn · 1790189807 · focus · HN ↗

                                          I have spoken at public meetings. It was all routine. I signed up, spoke about the topic of interest, kept within the time limit, and was polite. It was also ineffective.

                                          I don't think the individual who was arrested thought they would be arrested. From how I read the article, they were just confused about whether they could speak about the topic they wanted to speak about in that part of the meeting, and then, when things got heated, immediately went to giviing people the finger. It's not really surprising- these events can get very heated and people's instincts take over. I think if she had an indication she was going to be arrested, she likely would have waited until the topic came up in a future meeting.

                                          BTW, from the nature of your questions and my experience on the internet, you may be trying to lay a trap where you use my words to show a logical contradiction (or you could just be asking questions in good faith- hard to tell on the internet these days). If that's your goal, please wrap up, I don't want to sit here answering questions about my beliefs.

                                          1. chaps · 1790190656 · focus · HN ↗

                                             Not setting up a trap, I'm just genuinely interested in where you're coming from because, frankly, I don't get it. Sorry you've had bad experiences on the internet and thanks for your patience.

                                             Why do you think your public comment was ineffective?

                                             1. dekhn · 1790191190 · focus · HN ↗

                                                I don't get what you don't get?

                                                City Councils are business meetings. They typically follow an agenda, and have rules and sometimes there are court cases around people speaking at city council. My fundamental attitude is that if you want to contribute to a city council meeting without being arrested, you cannot assume your free speech rights trump all the other rules and practices being followed. In this case, the individual who was arrested violated a rule. The council acted within its rights (subject to any future court cases); personally I think it was a bit overhanded, but if they hadn't acted, the meeting would very likely have devolved into chaos.

                                                My beliefs are based on standard social studies courses about US civic society combined with watching the Berkeley City Council meeting repeatedly get disrupted by individuals.

                                                For the comment- it was ineffective because it failed to convince the council to vote the way I wanted (and this was so long ago that I can&#x27;t even remember the topic.). Here&#x27;s an article from my hometown describing somebody else who was more disruptive: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courant.com&#x2F;2000&#x2F;05&#x2F;16&#x2F;city-watchdog-sydney-libby-dies&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.courant.com&#x2F;2000&#x2F;05&#x2F;16&#x2F;city-watchdog-sydney-libb.... &quot;&quot;&quot;City officials used to complain that arresting Libby mattered little because the judicial system seemed not to take him seriously. That changed in April 1997 when an exasperated Superior Court judge, tired of Libby’s courtroom behavior, threw him in jail and ordered Libby to undergo a mental competency exam.&quot;&quot;&quot; (we had several other people who would routinely disrupt as well)

                                                1. chaps · 1790192616 · focus · HN ↗

                                                   What I&#x27;m not really understanding is why &quot;a bit overhanded&quot; is a small throwaway point. Speaking from Chicago where we have very notorious public speakers at city council and it&#x27;s one of those that&#x27;s-just-what-happens things. I&#x27;ve also done a fair amount of research&#x2F;reporting on criminal courts where the idea of arresting someone for giving the middle finger to city council absolutely fucking floors me. So a lot of my questions are oriented around trying to understand why getting arrested is such a (seemingly) small deal.

                                                   - Do you think Springfield could have handled the situation better without arresting her?

                                                   1. dekhn · 1790196221 · focus · HN ↗

                                                      I was going to say that she wasn&#x27;t arrested for giving the mayor the middle finger, but I re-read the entire article (which has been updated since this was originally posted) and the citation does in fact say &quot;disrupting the peace... gave mayor the finger&quot;. Well, that was dumb (on the part of the cop who wrote that).

                                                      1. chaps · 1790197606 · focus · HN ↗

                                                         Thanks for joining me on this ride. Have a good one.
      5. embedding-shape · 1790180850 · focus · HN ↗

         This has to be sarcasm, right? The added context is that she held up her middle fingers, as that somehow justifies anything but a shrug?
      6. Razengan · 1790181831 · focus · HN ↗

         People who push shit like constant mass surveillance deserve much worse than middle fingers.
      7. JKCalhoun · 1790181938 · focus · HN ↗

         No.

         (I suppose I have a little more respect for her, though. We certainly need more citizens like her.)

         1. scottyah · 1790182157 · focus · HN ↗

            No, we do not. Throwing a tantrum is not conducive. If you actually cared about preventing the proliferation of flock cameras, you would hate this woman&#x27;s actions. No solid arguments, no discussions, just making the opposition look like fools who just have rage and are using this case to feel important.

            1. chaps · 1790182309 · focus · HN ↗

               I care about preventing the proliferation of flock cameras (and more) and I do not hate this woman&#x27;s actions even one bit.

               1. scottyah · 1790206581 · focus · HN ↗

                  Well, I suppose people like you are the reason the cameras are being installed. A bit ironic, but makes sense in hindsight.

                  1. chaps · 1790209336 · focus · HN ↗

                     lol zing i don&#x27;t even have a car
            2. text0404 · 1790182931 · focus · HN ↗

               &gt; No solid arguments, no discussions

               From the article, she showed up to make solid arguments and have a discussion, but:

               &quot;There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.&quot;

   3. throwup238 · 1790180952 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

   4. rdiddly · 1790181235 · focus · HN ↗

      I don&#x27;t even get what the comment has to do with anything. Is it supposed to be some kind of zinger? It&#x27;s a great idea. Make him spend all night arresting people.

      1. dekhn · 1790181419 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

         1. hi_im_greg_h · 1790190555 · focus · HN ↗

            Sorry, what?

            The article didn&#x27;t &quot;include&quot; the zinger, the cop said it. If you think it&#x27;s an inappropriate thing for a cop to say (I do) then the article is not to blame for you being angry. The cop is.

            The article didn&#x27;t enrage me. The video did. The actions of the local politicians and police did.

         2. burnt-resistor · 1790198001 · focus · HN ↗

            [flagged]

            1. dekhn · 1790202426 · focus · HN ↗

               This is a low-quality comment that doesn&#x27;t even attempt to understand why I would say what I say.

               1. G0lg0thvn · 1790203759 · focus · HN ↗

                  “ After reading the article, while I sympathize with the woman who was arrested, I am not surprised at the outcome.”

                  Such a “nuanced” take that has been repeated ad infinitum in this thread isn’t exactly worthy of further discussion considering the shallow depth of the position.

            2. tomhow · 1790323697 · focus · HN ↗

               Stop acting like a jerk here. If you have something of substance to say, you can use full sentences and avoid vile slurs. We&#x27;ve cut you plenty of slack because you&#x27;ve had substantive things to say, but that can&#x27;t continue if you keep this up. This is a place for people who have basic standards of decency, at the very least. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html
      2. paulddraper · 1790181485 · focus · HN ↗

         Have you not heard similar from parents&#x2F;teachers&#x2F;chaperons?

         &quot;I will take as long as I need, to get you to comply. Your resistance doesn&#x27;t make this go away, it just prolongs the inevitable.&quot;

         1. SauciestGNU · 1790185263 · focus · HN ↗

            Resistance may be futile, but resistance is also moral duty.
         2. rdiddly · 1790211571 · focus · HN ↗

            So it&#x27;s a message aimed at gullible children. If it were true, they wouldn&#x27;t announce it. Announcing it, in the hope you&#x27;ll go quietly, is admitting out loud that they would in fact prefer precisely that, and that they don&#x27;t have unlimited time and energy to spend on you.

            1. Timon3 · 1790212518 · focus · HN ↗

               Humans aren&#x27;t always rational actors. Many people are delighted by having the power to inflict fear and pain upon others. Policing jobs seem to structurally attract such people, I&#x27;ve seen incidents and scandals of this nature in many places.
            2. paulddraper · 1790278184 · focus · HN ↗

               I feel like you may be intentionally dense, but in case you aren&#x27;t.

               Someone can have more than enough time and energy for a task, but prefer to do other tasks as well.

               1. rdiddly · 1790529508 · focus · HN ↗

                  Whether one phrases it as a lack of energy or a preference, is not the important part. The important part is, the cop is lying. It&#x27;s a tactical lie. Gratuitously offered, I might add, since no one cares what his preferences or energy level are.

                  He would probably rather sit around drinking coffee than haul people out of a meeting. Unless he&#x27;s a bit of a sadist, as people elsewhere on the thread have implied. Just for giggles I&#x27;ll make the &quot;energy&quot; argument too. How long can he maintain a vigorous struggle against a truly resistive subject, or a whole room full of them? How long can he keep up with someone who is in athletic running shape? Not &quot;all night&quot; surely.

   5. paulddraper · 1790181252 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. pixl97 · 1790181411 · focus · HN ↗

         Looking at the the wrong way, what the citizenship in mass should be doing is surrounding the meeting with torches and making said council fear for their lives.

         1. paulddraper · 1790181545 · focus · HN ↗

            Imminent threats of violence are not covered by the First Amendment.

            Peaceful gatherings are covered.

            1. G0lg0thvn · 1790181769 · focus · HN ↗

               Middle fingers are and imminent threat of violence now?

               1. scottyah · 1790182006 · focus · HN ↗

                  If you read the thread, you might be able to parse out what the user you responded to is commenting on...

                  &gt; what the citizenship in mass should be doing is surrounding the meeting with torches and making said council fear for their lives

                  1. pesus · 1790182065 · focus · HN ↗

                     Please engage in good faith and write comments that contribute, rather than taking away, from the conversation.

                     1. dekhn · 1790183898 · focus · HN ↗

                        Please engage in good faith and write comments that contribute, rather than taking away, from the conversation. [ the above comment was modified to copy mine; this is not good faith ]
                     2. scottyah · 1790206820 · focus · HN ↗

                        Not sure I understand this, are you supporting the purposeful derailment and baiting? How is quoting a post taking away from the conversation?
         2. Aurornis · 1790182227 · focus · HN ↗

            Violent threats only sound like a good idea if you can only imagine them being used by people you agree with.

            A society that let small mobs carrying torches dictate your laws would not be good for you, me, or anyone other than the most violent vocal minority.

            1. cucumber3732842 · 1790182386 · focus · HN ↗

               &gt;Violent threats only sound like a good idea if you can only imagine them being used by people you agree with.

               You mean like how they used the &quot;you can&#x27;t speak on an issue because we&#x27;ve decided we&#x27;re not talking about that&quot; rule to have this lady hauled off?

               1. gruez · 1790182927 · focus · HN ↗

                  &gt;You mean like how they used the &quot;you can&#x27;t speak on an issue because we&#x27;ve decided we&#x27;re not talking about that&quot; rule to have this lady hauled off?

                  It&#x27;s not open Q&amp;A. There&#x27;s nothing preventing them from speaking on their preferred issue online, or even outside. Otherwise public meetings quickly devolve into anarchy. If a specific time was allocated to talk about speed limits, do you think it&#x27;s fair game for TERFs to use that time to complain about gendered bathrooms?

                  That&#x27;s not to say the mayor&#x2F;council is in the right either, but we also can&#x27;t have &quot;if you think the debate was shut down too early you can do whatever you want&quot;.

                  1. cucumber3732842 · 1790186426 · focus · HN ↗

                     &gt;It&#x27;s not open Q&amp;A. There&#x27;s nothing preventing them from speaking on their preferred issue online, or even outside. Otherwise public meetings quickly devolve into anarchy. If a specific time was allocated to talk about speed limits, do you think it&#x27;s fair game for TERFs to use that time to complain about gendered bathrooms?

                     Bring on the TERFs. Better it be a dumpster fire that get&#x27;s DOS&#x27;d from time to time than people not be allowed to speak their minds.

            2. [deleted] · 1790182869 · focus · HN ↗

               [deleted]

            3. ashkankiani · 1790183653 · focus · HN ↗

               You might want to look at how a small mob orchaestrated by and comprised of Bush&#x27;s campaign flooded voting offices to stop a recount, as part of a successful effort to steal the election from Gore <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Brooks_Brothers_riot" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Brooks_Brothers_riot

               They didn&#x27;t even need torches to subvert democracy. I think a majority of Americans are under the misconception that they live in a civilized democracy, and that they have been for a while. But if you look under the covers (or if you&#x27;re a minority), or just learn history, then you&#x27;ll find that it&#x27;s not.

            4. jst1fthsdys · 1790183786 · focus · HN ↗

               &gt;A society that let small mobs carrying torches dictate your laws would not be good for you, me, or anyone other than the most violent vocal minority.

               We talking about the oligarchs here or?

            5. terminalbraid · 1790184136 · focus · HN ↗

               You might be shocked to learn how &quot;society&quot; has been forged over history.
            6. joquarky · 1790202459 · focus · HN ↗

               Isn&#x27;t that how this country was founded?
         3. elzbardico · 1790182272 · focus · HN ↗

            And please make Bastille Day from Rush to be the soundtrack for this.
         4. cucumber3732842 · 1790182316 · focus · HN ↗

            Gather up a dozen friends, dress like Indians and throw the politician in the harbor. Yes I know I&#x27;m mixing and matching historical references, that&#x27;s the point. Have one guy dressed as Elizabeth Warren, another guy like the redskins mascot and a third guy as Abu from the Simpsons like they didn&#x27;t understand the assignment. The point is to maximize the meme-ability of it so that you get a court of public opinion trial and not the usual kangaroo court trial that people who thumb their nose at government get.
         5. dekhn · 1790182344 · focus · HN ↗

            Threaten elected officials with violence to achieve political aims? That seems counterproductive.

            1. jst1fthsdys · 1790183699 · focus · HN ↗

               Voting seems counterproductive too. Time for a change.
      2. [deleted] · 1790181973 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

      3. cge · 1790186264 · focus · HN ↗

         If the attendee&#x27;s description is true and the video is not missing context, then that doesn&#x27;t appear to be what happened. Interpreting her description and the video, during the public comment period for an unrelated topic, she went through the usual process for giving a public comment, started her completely off-topic written statement, then was arrested during it a few seconds after two attempts by the council to interrupt her, during which she was flipping off the council.

         If she was within her allotted time for a comment that was completely off-topic but otherwise complied with the public comment process, and her flipping off the council was, as she claims, only after it was clear that she was going to be interrupted by the police, then that does seem different than actually interrupting the discussion or refusing to leave.

   6. sippingabonedry · 1790181603 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. solenoid0937 · 1790181656 · focus · HN ↗

         Why does a city council installing Flock cameras deserve respect?

         Why do they get to use the police state to abuse people if they get disrespected?

         Absolutely insane that the surveillance state is expanding (even more!) and this is what you&#x27;re concerned about.

         1. scottyah · 1790181927 · focus · HN ↗

            This must be parody, do you not understand the basics of a functioning society?

            1. Avicebron · 1790182254 · focus · HN ↗

               Not taking the concerns of the people you supposedly represent seriously is more rude than a middle finger.

               1. scottyah · 1790207102 · focus · HN ↗

                  The middle finger is destructive and vindictive, it does not help the anti-flock movement, does not help reasonable adults reach middle ground, and has absolutely no moral standing. It&#x27;s throwing a tantrum for a person&#x27;s ego.

                  No amount of whataboutisms or ignoring history since before writing (&quot;eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind&quot;, etc) will ever make this look like a good move and you should seriously reconsider whatever media you&#x27;ve consumed that have distorted your values this far.

         2. sippingabonedry · 1790182169 · focus · HN ↗

            Act like a child, expect to be treated like one.

            1. text0404 · 1790182407 · focus · HN ↗

               And the mayor who refused public comments at the last minute? &quot;Act like a tyrant, expect to be treated like one&quot;?

               1. dekhn · 1790182509 · focus · HN ↗

                  How familiar are you with city council proceedings? I think we need to know before engaging with you further. It&#x27;s not useful to argue with free speech absolutists.

                  1. text0404 · 1790183205 · focus · HN ↗

                     Very familiar. How familiar are you with the principles of democratic societies?

                     1. dekhn · 1790188592 · focus · HN ↗

                        Moderately so, and then after this thread started I spent some time checking up on the latest in city council disruptions which helped emphasize that the arrest would hold up in court.

                        1. text0404 · 1790200933 · focus · HN ↗

                           &gt; I think we need to know before engaging with you further. It&#x27;s not useful to argue with free speech absolutists.

                           ... so by your own logic, engaging with you further would be useless because you&#x27;re only moderately familiar with democratic principles?

                           1. dekhn · 1790204954 · focus · HN ↗

                              Argue in good faith, and don&#x27;t assume I&#x27;m only moderately familiar.

                              1. text0404 · 1790205183 · focus · HN ↗

                                 When I asked you how familiar you were with democratic principles, you said:

                                 &gt; Moderately so

                                 You also asked for my credentials and told me that it would be useless to continue speaking to me if I didn&#x27;t have the experience you expected, which doesn&#x27;t strike me as a good faith argument.

         3. gruez · 1790182628 · focus · HN ↗

            &gt;Why does a city council installing Flock cameras deserve respect?

            Because making respect contingent on &quot;whether you agree with the issue or not&quot; is a great way to make everything devolve into partisan tribes, eg. &quot;anti-abortionists: why do baby killers deserve respect?&quot;

            1. jst1fthsdys · 1790184373 · focus · HN ↗

               &gt; Because making respect contingent on &quot;whether you agree with the issue or not&quot;

               It is when that issue is personal privacy and our fundamental rights. Why would I want to respect them when they want to further dehumanize us?

               1. gruez · 1790184993 · focus · HN ↗

                  &gt;It is when that issue is personal privacy and our fundamental rights. Why would I want to respect them when they want to further dehumanize us?

                  You really can&#x27;t see why this can&#x27;t be applied to abortion as well? I&#x27;m not even against abortion and I can see the problem with what&#x27;s essentially &quot;if you you disagree with them enough you don&#x27;t have to respect them&quot;.

                  1. jst1fthsdys · 1790185324 · focus · HN ↗

                     The anti abortion people have already done that. They harass women and bomb clinics. They don&#x27;t respect women and actively work to have their rights taken away. So I don&#x27;t really care about them, nor do I respect them. The same way I will not respect the wannabe little lords in city councils like this.

                     1. sippingabonedry · 1790185990 · focus · HN ↗

                        [dead]

                        1. jst1fthsdys · 1790188431 · focus · HN ↗

                           [dead]

      2. RunSet · 1790182336 · focus · HN ↗

         &gt; Yeah because addressing the city council with your middle fingers extended is totally mature and appropriate of adults.

         I think by reaching adulthood, let alone public office, most people have seen middle fingers before. Moreover there is no statute against being in public bare-handed.

   7. letn1 · 1790194380 · focus · HN ↗

      Well this is how it has been in russia, last 10 years. Started like this got worse with each year.
   8. snvzz · 1790266533 · focus · HN ↗

      Body cameras say otherwise.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.