> 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.
It wasn't that the council disagreed with what Heider said, it's that what she was talking about was unrelated to the meeting.
Someone going on the stand to rant about abortion during a meeting on sidewalk codes would similarly get removed.
I doubt you are pro-Flock, perhaps you don't like civil disobedience?
I don't see a government losing face, I see a bunch of online commenters demonstrating they don't understand that city council meetings have rules.
I recall watching a meeting, I think it was in Austin? Where on every topic, most people coming up to talk did so because they refused to hear comments on the cameras. Instead, they had to deal with the frustration of constantly sending people off the podium.
The lesson being, if you know people will feel strongly, it should behoove you to schedule time for them to speak properly.
The issue is that city council meetings that schedule open discussion on topics often end up running late into the night (after midnight) and the discussion doesn't achieve much.
I don't thikn we can say with certainty that the chair tabled the discussion with the intent of disallowing people their right to discuss it. That's interpreting subjective intent.
An alternative of course is to saw down the Flock cameras. I suspect people like the woman in the article though are trying to find legal ways to be heard—to elicit change.
Is there a legal alternative that you can think of that would be effective?
You can organize a protest in a public space like a park. You can book a space like a library or a church. You can start mailing lists to organize like-minded people.
Also, your example is obviously off-base. If they said there would be a period to talk about abortion, and someone did, I’d feel the same way.
The council cancelled the comments about flock because they know they’re doing something deeply unpopular. Perhaps they feel guilt or shame, which are appropriate responses. Rather than sitting in said guilt or shame, they felt the need to prioritize their ego. As a very minor and frankly inconsequential protest, one person spoke briefly out of turn.
That’s what happened. I don’t know, the sides seem clear cut to me.