Hacker News Reader

Comment by Manuel_D | Hacker News Reader

> Again, your hypothetical is not equivalent because it assumes that the "activists" a. had their own public comments section, and b. they monopolized the entire meeting. Neither of those things happened here.

What do you mean "it assumes that the 'activists' a. had their own public comments section"? In this scenario, neither the anti-flock nor anti-abortion activists appear to have had a public comments section on their respective topics. You're the one assuming that anti-abortion activists did have their own public comments section, which I cannot find any evidence for.

Whether or not they "monopolize" the meeting is just a question of degrees - just assume that the anti-abortion activists dominate the meeting to the same degree as the Flock critics in this scenario.

View on HN

I'm not going to engage with your hypothetical nor do I think it's incumbent on me to provide you evidence of anything related to it. If you want to ground this in reality, we can go back to discussing the facts of the actual situation which occurred in the article:

> There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.

Of course you don't want to engage with the hypothetical: it highlights that you selectively condone disregarding the rules and procedures on public comments is based on your support for the person making off-topic comments. Obviously we can't just let anyone make off-topic comments, because then it'll just be a free-for-all of people soapboxing for unrelated topics. But Hyder gets a pass because you agree with her. It's not some principled free speech position, it's just partisanship.

Disregard for procedure and rules sounds fine when it's people you agree with that engage in this behavior. But when you're the one who doesn't get a chance to speak because of people ranting about abortion in the meeting that's supposed to be your opportunity to make your voice heard to the city council I bet your views on procedure will flip 180 degrees!

[citation needed]

Nah man, I just think you're trying to straw man this conversation and ignoring the facts of the article, which is coincidentally what someone else said at the beginning of this thread.

The facts of the article is that Hyder made off-topic comments and was removed accordingly. Just like what would happen if someone made anti-abortion comments during this meeting on sidewalk codes.

What I'm ignoring is that apparently we're supposed to see it as an injustice when the government evenly enforces its rules, instead of selectively enforcing them to permit off-topic comments when those comments express the "correct" views.

> The facts of the article is that Hyder made off-topic comments and was removed accordingly.

Once again using a hypothetical and ignoring the context of why she made "off-topic" comments, which is what people are upset about. Should we just keep going in circles? Your turn.

The context of why she made the off-topic comments is that there was no scheduled public comments period with ALPRs as the topic.

Similarly, there seems to be no scheduled public comments period with abortion as the topic.

Of course, neither of these grants anti-flock or anti-abortion activists the right to make off-topic comments on unrelated meetings. Like I said, apparently it's an injustice when the government evenly applies its rules.

> The context of why she made the off-topic comments is that there was no scheduled public comments period with ALPRs as the topic.

Quoting the article:

> Dozens of people showed up to the Springfield City Council Meeting on September 22 with plans to let city leaders know how they felt about the city’s use of automated license plate readers. There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.

> “This isn’t how government is supposed to run. It’s just disappointing. And we’re not even allowing folks to speak who clearly came out to share their voices tonight.”

As I wrote, the city council did not schedule a public comments period on the issue of ALPRs. I'm not sure why you think anything in your quote contradicts what I wrote in the previous comment.

They don't explicitly schedule public comments periods in the agendas in Springfield, MO.

The city's rules for addressing Council also list Resolutions among the categories open to public comment. Placing the Flock resolution on the agenda automatically includes a scheduled public comment on it too. Residents were required to register and they did. Before those speakers were called, the council sent the resolution to committee, preventing them from speaking.

Uh huh. Regardless of your semantic quibbling about the word "schedule", at the end of the day there was neither the opportunity to make a public comment about abortion nor to make one about ALPRs. If someone went up to this comment section and started to rant about abortion they would be appropriately removed - just like Hyde was.

But that's an injustice! Hyde should get to flout the rules. Because her position is a "correct" one. Because it's wrong for the government to evenly enforce the rules on public comment periods, and instead they ought to selectively enforce the rules to your liking.

There's nothing more to be said here. You're just repeating the same talking points you've said in this comment chain.

> Regardless of your semantic quibbling about the word "schedule"

That was the crux of your latest argument dude. That weird one where you tried to tie this to anti-abortion activists.

> Because it's wrong for the government to evenly enforce the rules on public comment periods, and instead they ought to selectively enforce the rules to your liking.

Keep straw-manning! I believe in you!

> There's nothing more to be said here. You're just repeating the same talking points you've said in this comment chain.

Yes, I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com