670
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
670 points (100.0% liked)
News
38561 readers
1155 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Disrupting civil proceedings is not. I applaud (heh) his actions, but they are not protected by the first amendment.
Edit: But an arrest seems extreme. He should have just been removed.
i have to admit that the article was too long and I stopped, so I'm not really sure that was the "wrongdoing"
At city council or committee meetings the gallery is not allowed to make noise. They are there only to observe.
The gallery was especially noisy at this meeting and was warned to be quiet multiple times. Just because no one is speaking does not mean the gallery is allowed to clap.
You seem to forgot who city council works for.
You like the boot, but the rest of us don't. Learn to read rooms.
They crave authoritarian violence. The dog whistle is their belief that they'll be the ones doing the oppression next time, if they lick the boot passionately enough
I know what these bootlickers are. I see them.
That's fucking stupid, it's a stupid rule and nonsensical. What, are people not supposed to have reactions to things?
I think it’s just to not disrupt the proceedings. If you want to speak to an issue you can register as a delegation.
I’m reminded of a funny incident during a recent Calgary council meeting where a delegation was asked to stop clapping — they could continue singing, but I guess clapping is against the rules of decorum: https://youtu.be/UQRi4FpEj34 at about 4:55.
My whole point is that if someone is clapping or booing or otherwise reacting to a person speaking and they're not actively disrupting the speaker it shouldn't be a problem.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to not react or be silent when talking about stuff that impacts them directly and as long as it's not very clearly outright hate speech or disrupting a speaker then it should be okay.
Rules of decorum are fine and all but when they're used as a cudgel to silence expression from constituents at a town hall that's bad.
It’s not about interrupting the speaker, it’s about the procedure. Boring legal stuff. Refer to funny anecdote I shared from Calgary (I realize Canada and US may do some things differently).
At the risk of being called a bootlicker, they weren’t just saying stuff and clapping, they were interrupting official meetings and asked to be dragged out.
Is this an abuse of power? Probably. How many people have been asked to leave or arrested for supporting the commissioners agenda? If this guy was disruptive (he did refuse to leave), did that deserve arrest? I don’t think so
I'm not gonna call you a bootlicker but I will say that the boring legal stuff is just words on a page. The procedure is just made up, and I think it's mostly made up to not help us.
Anyways doesn't matter, have a good day.
Local government is still government, and is beholden to state, federal, and constitutional law. The first amendment allows US citizens to address their government as they see fit, barring a few exceptions such as viable threats or violence. Clapping in approval of others expressing their first amendment right to address grievances with their government is not basis for government force, and any reasonable court would struggle to claim it was so disruptive as to prevent the event from being able to proceed. He didnt stop any speakers or officials from moving to or from the podium, prevent them from reasonably being heard by the attendees, or cause the event to be unsafe.
Government buildings are also public property, and authorities cannot legally force someone to leave public property in the US unless they can articulate a crime being committed. Cops love to throw around disorderly conduct, but that typically gets thrown out because, shocker, those statues are more complex than "I find you personally annoying."
This is basic US civics and the most basic of basic rights in the US. I'm no attorney, but a bachelors CJ degree and 10 years in that career field always leaves me astounded at how poorly the average person in this country understands their rights. I guess that's why it's so easy for them to be eroded.
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.
I disagree. Local council rules do not supercede the law, and it is a slippery slope we are already struggling to climb when we start making exceptions to avoid uncomfortable political realities. Clearly the residents in this area are opposed to this data center, and instead of acting as responsible elected officials carrying out the needs of their constituents, they arrest them for dissenting and getting in the way of their illegitimate cash flow.
This is the exact opposite of how we purport our government to work in the US. We are supposed to be the standard for a free nation and a model of governance where our system works for us, the people. What this event was in reality was fascism and political persecution, and the officials and law enforcement involved in this decision should be held civilly and criminally liable.
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.
Correct, they can limit free speech in the ways that the Supreme Court has told them they can. Clapping does not meet the standard.
Convenient and non-disruptive protest has a time and place. The US is far beyond a time and place where it is useful, though. When the government is blatantly out of control, even at the local level, the people are within their right to escalate. I'm a leftist, and I believe in actual freedom and the power of the people, not a lib who's afraid to stray too far from the center in case someone cries about being uncomfortable when we're talking about government overreach.
This person was "inconvenient"? That fucking sucks. Welcome to government work, suck it up or resign to make room for someone more capable of taking criticism and putting their pride away for the good of the community. The people don't want a data center, it doesn't matter that the city council does.
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.
According to the article he was arrested after he was told to leave and refused.