4 ms·
I’m not exactly sure how an abuse of power occurring at a public event relates to the question of privacy or freedom of speech. The law did not allow the office
by derektank 4mo ago
I’m not exactly sure how an abuse of power occurring at a public event relates to the question of privacy or freedom of speech. The law did not allow the officer to arrest the man for the content of his speech so he retaliated by enforcing a different law unjustly. This kind of selective enforcement of the law can be a violation of federal law and the man likely has standing to sue.
- derektank 4mo agoFor reference, a similar case of selective enforcement against an outspoken critic of the local government in Texas resulted in the critic receiving a settlement of $500k following an unjust arrest https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/10/15/i-feel-like-i-can-breathe-again-castle-hills-former-councilwoman-agree-on-500000-settlement/ https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/10/15/i-feel-like-i-can...
- microgpt 4mo agoit's an example of the government silencing people for speech
- charcircuit 4mo agoNo, it's an example of someone being told to leave, not doing so, and then being arrested for trespassing.
- microgpt 4mo ago[flagged]
- nephihaha 4mo agoFor being five seconds over? Not even minutes.
- charcircuit 4mo agoHe was asked due to his actions he took after he was told to stop. If he had just stopped talking after being told his time was up he would not have been asked to leave.
- microgpt 4mo ago[flagged]
- derektank 4mo agoThe 1st amendment has long been understood to protect the content of your speech, not the time, place, or manner of your speech. It guarantees the communicative act, the viewpoint or message conveyed; it does not give you an unlimited right to convey it however you want. The government has been consistently allowed by the Supreme Court to establish noise ordinances preventing people from yelling into a bullhorn at night or laws against marching a protest down a busy city street without first obtaining a parade permit. As long as there is no viewpoint discrimination in how those laws are enforced, it is perfectly legal to restrict public comment periods to 3 minutes.
- microgpt 4mo agoWhy not three seconds or three milliseconds? There's unreasonable discrimination because the public comment period is only used for speech which disagrees with the government.
- nephihaha 4mo agoFive seconds is nothing. It's shorter than it took to type this message.
- charcircuit 4mo agoI don't get your point. Going over by 5 seconds didn't get him in trouble. The court can tolerate such minor mistakes as long as people are willing to behave themselves.
- derektank 4mo agoIt’s an example of someone being arrested for violating a law, in this case a law restricting how long you are allowed to present at a city council meeting. This could be a case of selective enforcement, a deliberate attempt to retaliate against the man for his previous speech, which would be illegal under federal law (see Gonzales v. Trevino). It’s also possible that this is not a new thing and the municipality in question just regulates city business very strictly. This is bad in its own right, it grants too much power to the state which can be abused, but would not be a free speech question.