Thread

1. Aurornis · 1790181534 · focus · HN ↗

   They really buried the details in this article. The opener leads you to believe she did nothing wrong because she briefly spoke during a public comment period

   > Mia Heider had never attended a public meeting before when she showed up to the city council meeting in Springfield, Missouri. After briefly speaking at a podium during a public comment period, she was arrested and dragged away in handcuffs.

   The details are toward the end. The council was trying to discuss a public housing issue and she was trying to use that time slot to bring up Flock.

   > Later in the evening Mia Heider tried to speak out about Flock during public comments about a housing issue.

   They cut off the mic and told her it was the wrong topic, she wouldn’t leave the podium, flipped off the council (it’s the photo in the article) and the police hauled her off the podium.

   There’s a real valid story in here about the city council sending the Flock thing to committee, but the article has been through the clickbait ringer so many times that they’re trying to make it sound like someone got arrested for saying “Flock cameras” during an open comments section, which isn’t true.

   Given the topic I’m probably going to get downvoted for bringing up facts from the article itself, but I’m really tired of this type of journalism where you can tell they workshopped this and carefully chose which important details to bury at the bottom of the story so it gives a different impression if you only read the headline or skim the first couple paragraphs.

   1. empath75 · 1790182226 · focus · HN ↗

      Giving someone the finger is not a crime.

      1. Aurornis · 1790182304 · focus · HN ↗

         Interrupting a city council meeting, speaking out of turn, refusing to leave, and then devolving into obvious defiance is, however.

         1. freejazz · 1790182510 · focus · HN ↗

            Well, she spoke about something 'off topic' during public comments - if that's the same thing as what you described, I'm not so sure.

            1. gruez · 1790183231 · focus · HN ↗

               >during public comments

               You're conveniently omitting the fact it was public comments for a different issue

               >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.

               1. Matl · 1790184150 · focus · HN ↗

                  He may be omitting that because it seems like a convenient way to not hear comments about an issue by switching to a different issue.
               2. thereader12 · 1790184564 · focus · HN ↗

                  Because the council canceled comments on the Flock issue that had been scheduled for that day.
               3. freejazz · 1790186844 · focus · HN ↗

                  Did I omit that? I don't think so. I pointed out her comments were 'off topic.'

                  > Well, she spoke about something 'off topic' during public comments

                  I didn't even address what others pointed out, which was that the topic was suddenly changed because these people showed up.

         2. ModernMech · 1790183841 · focus · HN ↗

            Ah I see you are well versed in bureaucratic attack strategies on the first amendment! “We’re not violating your rights, there’s a special first amendment zone you can say all that where we can’t hear!”

            1. dekhn · 1790184031 · focus · HN ↗

               Can you instead try to see that people who disagree with you may actually not being attempting to subvert the first amendment, but instead are focusing on the necessary business city councils have to achieve? There are clearly limits on what you can say and do in a city council meeting.

               1. ModernMech · 1790189504 · focus · HN ↗

                  I can see that, but that's also exactly the mechanism by which buraucracies attack the first amendment, so people who just reasonably disagree should explain how their disagreement doesn't serve the very agenda they say they're against.

                  1. dekhn · 1790190365 · focus · HN ↗

                     Do you truly believe the mayor and city council were trying to attack the first amendment as a core principle?

                     We don't live in an free speech absolutist society. People don't get to talk about just anything, at any time during a city council meeting without restrictions. Don't attribute to malice what is more easily attribute to getting business done.

                     1. ModernMech · 1790196754 · focus · HN ↗

                        Malice isn't required to destroy the first amendment, city councils arresting people speaking out, in the name of getting business done is enough. I think the "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" view of free speech is very much a minority view. Most people, especially mayors and city councils, ascribe to the "free speech for me and not for thee" view.

                        > We don't live in an free speech absolutist society

                        I'm not sure what kind of society we live in. Is there even a social contract anymore? Is the Constitution even in effect? I'm not sure exactly what the rules are anymore, we live in a society where a mob violently attacked the US capitol, and got pardons for their trouble. So, why bother talking about anything, when violence is rewarded but speech gets you a record? What's even the point of the first amendment, it's meaningless when they can just write an executive order deeming their political opponents (or anyone) part of a vast but nebulous terrorist network, who obviously don't have a first amendment right. Because terrorists.

         3. empath75 · 1790351543 · focus · HN ↗

            Annoying your local city council is exactly the sort of speech protected by the first amendment.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.