> The video footage doesn't show how disruptive he was being; but I find it reasonable that he was clapping in a way that the the person running the public comment meeting had specifically asked people not to do in the name of expediently getting to as many comments as possible.

You're suggesting that the bar arbitrarily set by a councilmember on what counts as sufficient disruption to hurt expediency* trumps what seems like just clapping and agreement -- one would argue is clearly protected speech per the 1st amendment and I'd argue squarely within the spirit of why we have public comments in the first place?

I think that's a pretty slippery slope and enables projecting power through process, not something we want from our elected officials.

*an aside - why is expediency the goal? if this is a contentious topic, schedule more time so the focus is on receiving public feedback!)