Yes, and it's protected by the first amendment.
> they don't guarantee that every single person will be able to speak at length about their grievances.
In this case, they didn't let anyone speak at any length about their grievances. Hence this article.
> In a democracy, it's generally disruptive to prevent constituents from petitioning for redress of grievances.
The real "disruption" here is the fact that the council and the mayor refuse to listen to their constituents, not that some of those constituents are angry about it.
I think Heider has a much better case, were she to try to sue the city council (which I think is a waste of time if her goal is to prevent Flock cameras), but even then, the laws and cases around people who disrupt city councils are complex, and if the city lost... it would j ust end up costing tax payers more money.
Are you sure the intent of the council was to specifically refuse to listen?