In a recent GASC meeting, an assembly member stated it was not a First Amendment issue when the mayor gaveled a citizen prior to making critical statements of another member. And in a Feb. 8 LTE the member stated, “assembly meetings are business meetings,” and the podium at the Assembly Chambers “serves citizens who address the assembly on matters germane to the business at hand…”. Based on a myriad of Supreme Court cases, I disagree.
First, in Morse v. Frederick, the Court reiterated political speech is “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” Moreover, in NY Times v. Sullivan, it held political speech includes sharp attacks on public officials. Lastly, in Perry Educ. Assoc. v. Perry Local Educ. Assoc., the Court held political speech is protected in limited public forums such as public comment at meetings. Therefore, speech critical of an assembly member’s public comments is protected political speech during public comment periods.
Second, in Ward v. Rock Against Racism, the court stressed government actions halting protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling government interests. This means government actions gaveling speech must precisely address significant and legitimate objectives such as true threats or incitement to riots. However, based on the audio, no such threat existed at this meeting.
Gaveling this citizen was wrong. Political speech is crucial for a functioning democracy. It allows citizens to hold government and elected officials accountable. And accountability is essential for citizens to retain control over their government.
Mike Denker