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. 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. 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. 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]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.