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.
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.