Last Wednesday, Lux Claridge planned to speak out against a proposed 1,000 acre data center in their town of Emporia, Kansas. They left in handcuffs after a city commissioner ordered them arrested for clapping.
Last Wednesday, Lux Claridge planned to speak out against a proposed 1,000 acre data center in their town of Emporia, Kansas. They left in handcuffs after a city commissioner ordered them arrested for clapping.
Disrupting civil proceedings is not. I applaud (heh) his actions, but they are not protected by the first amendment.
Edit: But an arrest seems extreme. He should have just been removed.
Local government is still government, and is beholden to state, federal, and constitutional law. The first amendment allows US citizens to address their government as they see fit, barring a few exceptions such as viable threats or violence. Clapping in approval of others expressing their first amendment right to address grievances with their government is not basis for government force, and any reasonable court would struggle to claim it was so disruptive as to prevent the event from being able to proceed. He didnt stop any speakers or officials from moving to or from the podium, prevent them from reasonably being heard by the attendees, or cause the event to be unsafe.
Government buildings are also public property, and authorities cannot legally force someone to leave public property in the US unless they can articulate a crime being committed. Cops love to throw around disorderly conduct, but that typically gets thrown out because, shocker, those statues are more complex than “I find you personally annoying.”
This is basic US civics and the most basic of basic rights in the US. I’m no attorney, but a bachelors CJ degree and 10 years in that career field always leaves me astounded at how poorly the average person in this country understands their rights. I guess that’s why it’s so easy for them to be eroded.
deleted by creator
I think GP is probably right that removing him was correct within the letter of the law and the rules for council meetings. However, I do get the impression that in this case the rules were enforced so strictly to shape public perception of how unpopular the datacenter is, not to prevent interruptions. I hope the council member that asked for his removal isn’t re-elected or loses his position.
I also think that in a context where civilians are addressing the council, there should be an exception to the no noise rule allowing for some applause and whatnot at appropriate times.
I disagree. Local council rules do not supercede the law, and it is a slippery slope we are already struggling to climb when we start making exceptions to avoid uncomfortable political realities. Clearly the residents in this area are opposed to this data center, and instead of acting as responsible elected officials carrying out the needs of their constituents, they arrest them for dissenting and getting in the way of their illegitimate cash flow.
This is the exact opposite of how we purport our government to work in the US. We are supposed to be the standard for a free nation and a model of governance where our system works for us, the people. What this event was in reality was fascism and political persecution, and the officials and law enforcement involved in this decision should be held civilly and criminally liable.
I agree that what happened goes against the spirit of the law and free speech. But I do think that the government is allowed to limit speech to an appropriate time and place.
People can still express their opinion by loudly protesting outside, posting online or placing an ad in the paper, etc. They’re just not allowed to express it in a place and a manner that interrupts elected officials when they’re doing their job.
Do you feel free speech should be so strongly protected that people are allowed to prevent the government from functioning? Because that’s why the no noise rule exists. I think that rule was abused in this case, but it does make sense to me.
Correct, they can limit free speech in the ways that the Supreme Court has told them they can. Clapping does not meet the standard.
Convenient and non-disruptive protest has a time and place. The US is far beyond a time and place where it is useful, though. When the government is blatantly out of control, even at the local level, the people are within their right to escalate. I’m a leftist, and I believe in actual freedom and the power of the people, not a lib who’s afraid to stray too far from the center in case someone cries about being uncomfortable when we’re talking about government overreach.
This person was “inconvenient”? That fucking sucks. Welcome to government work, suck it up or resign to make room for someone more capable of taking criticism and putting their pride away for the good of the community. The people don’t want a data center, it doesn’t matter that the city council does.
I suspect that might be a valid legal opinion, but I have my doubts whether there is enough precedence to make it a legal fact. But IANAL, so I don’t really have an argument, nor does my opinion hold a lot of weight.
i have to admit that the article was too long and I stopped, so I’m not really sure that was the “wrongdoing”
At city council or committee meetings the gallery is not allowed to make noise. They are there only to observe.
The gallery was especially noisy at this meeting and was warned to be quiet multiple times. Just because no one is speaking does not mean the gallery is allowed to clap.
You seem to forgot who city council works for.
You like the boot, but the rest of us don’t. Learn to read rooms.
They crave authoritarian violence. The dog whistle is their belief that they’ll be the ones doing the oppression next time, if they lick the boot passionately enough
I know what these bootlickers are. I see them.
That’s fucking stupid, it’s a stupid rule and nonsensical. What, are people not supposed to have reactions to things?
I think it’s just to not disrupt the proceedings. If you want to speak to an issue you can register as a delegation.
I’m reminded of a funny incident during a recent Calgary council meeting where a delegation was asked to stop clapping — they could continue singing, but I guess clapping is against the rules of decorum: https://youtu.be/UQRi4FpEj34 at about 4:55.
My whole point is that if someone is clapping or booing or otherwise reacting to a person speaking and they’re not actively disrupting the speaker it shouldn’t be a problem.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people to not react or be silent when talking about stuff that impacts them directly and as long as it’s not very clearly outright hate speech or disrupting a speaker then it should be okay.
Rules of decorum are fine and all but when they’re used as a cudgel to silence expression from constituents at a town hall that’s bad.
According to the article he was arrested after he was told to leave and refused.