Thread

1. bpodgursky · 1790180661 · focus · HN ↗

   > 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.

   I mean, what is the appropriate response to someone refusing follow protocol after giving guidance that there's a different topic at hand now? There was a comment session on Flock cameras, people talked about it, then they moved onto housing. You can't run a public meeting where people get to drag every issue back to their favorite issue uninhibited, it just literally doesn't work. The meeting would run 24/7/365 and still nothing would get done.

   1. someonebaggy · 1790181002 · focus · HN ↗

      Sure makes it awfully convenient to end a comment session when you don't want to hear what's being said. We are approving the budget for the death ray, do we have any objections? You have five hundred microseconds to object. Let the record show there were no objections. Guards, arrest that man for speaking after the time for objections has ended.

      1. Manuel_D · 1790181405 · focus · HN ↗

         The comment session was for an entirely unrelated 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.

         It wasn't that the council disagreed with what Heider said, it's that what she was talking about was unrelated to the meeting.

         1. xboxnolifes · 1790182008 · focus · HN ↗

            It was unrelated because the entire session about flock was skipped.

            1. Manuel_D · 1790182162 · focus · HN ↗

               That doesn't make make it permissible to hijack other meetings. 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. someonebaggy · 1790188152 · focus · HN ↗

                  I'm glad you agree that the government deserves an easy "suppress dissent" button that makes it illegal to dissent.

                  1. Manuel_D · 1790190885 · focus · HN ↗

                     People can still dissent and protest - just not in the specific scenario of council meetings on sidewalk codes.

                     1. someonebaggy · 1790198577 · focus · HN ↗

                        Which scenario then

                        1. Manuel_D · 1790200492 · focus · HN ↗

                           Countless scenarios!

                           You can organize a protest in a public space like a park. You can book a space like a library or a church. You can start mailing lists to organize like-minded people.

                           1. someonebaggy · 1790228463 · focus · HN ↗

                              The first one sounds like something the government can deny a permit for and the second and third ones wouldn't reach the government at all.

                              1. Manuel_D · 1790265094 · focus · HN ↗

                                 You're entitled to freedom of speech. You're not entitled to an audience.

                                 1. someonebaggy · 1790299420 · focus · HN ↗

                                    Think you forgot an entire half an amendment there.

                                    1. Manuel_D · 1790621871 · focus · HN ↗

                                       What part did I forget?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.