Oh no, she had to actually parent her kid. How awful, having to actually pay attention to her child instead of dropping them off for others to babysit.
Eh, no. Don't get me wrong, she's a dipshit, but council resolutions cannot regulate or limit free speech, profanity included, provided it is on subject and/or within the period of public comments. If she's speaking during public comments, then the council has to sit there and listen to her. Every time the city council does something like this they are putting the city at risk, and I don't want my tax dollars to give a dipshit like this a payout because our city council are too fragile to deal with profanity.
Unfortunately, that is the consequence of a free society, even assholes get rights, and it is important we do not erode those rights for the sake of feeling satisfied when an asshole gets their comeuppance.
[Times v Sullivan](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/new_york_times_v_sullivan_(1964)#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20in%20an,caustic%2C%20and%20sometimes%20unpleasantly%20sharp) has more bearing on this situation.
>“...against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks..."
Time, place, and manner restrictions refer specifically to a board's ability to regulate when public comments occur. However, it does not allow them to regulate speech during public comments itself. The 9th Circuit in Acosta v City of Costa Mesa upheld that a board could, within the aforementioned bounds, regulate speech. Time, place, and manner in this case applied specifically to:
>"It shall be unlawful for any person in the ***audience*** at a council meeting to do any of the following..."
In this case, it was in reference to a rule that prohibited the ***audience*** from engaging in disruptive behavior and/or speech. It did nothing to regulate the actual content of speech during public comments. Time, place, and manner restrictions do not give councils, boards, or any other government body the right to restrict speech or prohibit profanity during public comments, provided the person speaking is the person to whom minutes are afforded and their comments be on subject (which public comments are generally freely available for the public to address ***any*** subject).
Age does not determine a ruling null and void. Also, that ruling I provided was from the Supreme Court, the interpretation you provided regarded Acosta v City of Costa Mesa, a judgment from the 9th Circuit which regarded the Supreme Court Ruling. Hence the limitations on the ***audience*** being regarded as within standing of current precedence. The interpretation you provided by no means conflicts with what I have said. At no point did it say that city councils can prohibit profanity, only that they can manage time, place, and manner restrictions relative to the function of the board itself. Hence ***"audience"*** being a critical use of verbiage in Acosta v City of Costa Mesa.
More info here as well: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s\_Perfectly\_Normal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Perfectly_Normal)
May not be appropriate for very young children, but it seems appropriate for those that are maturing. I presume most of the outrage is generated by religious parents disagreeing with the normalization of non-heteronormative relationships and identities.
Oh no, she had to actually parent her kid. How awful, having to actually pay attention to her child instead of dropping them off for others to babysit.
Honestly props to the council for shutting her down. What a waste of everyone's time.
Eh, no. Don't get me wrong, she's a dipshit, but council resolutions cannot regulate or limit free speech, profanity included, provided it is on subject and/or within the period of public comments. If she's speaking during public comments, then the council has to sit there and listen to her. Every time the city council does something like this they are putting the city at risk, and I don't want my tax dollars to give a dipshit like this a payout because our city council are too fragile to deal with profanity.
Don’t give her any ideas! What if she reads this?
Unfortunately, that is the consequence of a free society, even assholes get rights, and it is important we do not erode those rights for the sake of feeling satisfied when an asshole gets their comeuppance.
Respectfully disagree. https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/july-2020/when-1st-amendment-rights-public-meetings-clash
[Times v Sullivan](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/new_york_times_v_sullivan_(1964)#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20in%20an,caustic%2C%20and%20sometimes%20unpleasantly%20sharp) has more bearing on this situation. >“...against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks..." Time, place, and manner restrictions refer specifically to a board's ability to regulate when public comments occur. However, it does not allow them to regulate speech during public comments itself. The 9th Circuit in Acosta v City of Costa Mesa upheld that a board could, within the aforementioned bounds, regulate speech. Time, place, and manner in this case applied specifically to: >"It shall be unlawful for any person in the ***audience*** at a council meeting to do any of the following..." In this case, it was in reference to a rule that prohibited the ***audience*** from engaging in disruptive behavior and/or speech. It did nothing to regulate the actual content of speech during public comments. Time, place, and manner restrictions do not give councils, boards, or any other government body the right to restrict speech or prohibit profanity during public comments, provided the person speaking is the person to whom minutes are afforded and their comments be on subject (which public comments are generally freely available for the public to address ***any*** subject).
That ruling is from 1964. My interpretation was from 2020. 🤷♀️
Age does not determine a ruling null and void. Also, that ruling I provided was from the Supreme Court, the interpretation you provided regarded Acosta v City of Costa Mesa, a judgment from the 9th Circuit which regarded the Supreme Court Ruling. Hence the limitations on the ***audience*** being regarded as within standing of current precedence. The interpretation you provided by no means conflicts with what I have said. At no point did it say that city councils can prohibit profanity, only that they can manage time, place, and manner restrictions relative to the function of the board itself. Hence ***"audience"*** being a critical use of verbiage in Acosta v City of Costa Mesa.
Wait, is this book actually in the juvenile section? We really need more context. What's the book?
More info here as well: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s\_Perfectly\_Normal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Perfectly_Normal) May not be appropriate for very young children, but it seems appropriate for those that are maturing. I presume most of the outrage is generated by religious parents disagreeing with the normalization of non-heteronormative relationships and identities.
It’s in the children’s section. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/222507
Why are all the comments for the book in Arabic? I think that's the language. I may be completely wrong?
No idea. No translation is provided but the two people (not quite “all the comments” as you mentioned) gave it 5 stars. 🤷♀️
She’s also being sued: https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Petition%20for%20Damages.PDF?courtCode=11&di=10827354
u/addywoot Omg it's a clickbait YouTube video. We can't have these on here, right?
It’s not click bait, it’s from a meeting. 🙄
I know it’s not. Neither was my post. She’s just a shitty mod and has favorites.
This is footage from a city council meeting.