Clapping does not meet the standard.

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 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.

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.

According to the article he was arrested after he was told to leave and refused.

There used to be a language attribute, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen lang before.