|
By JAMes GROssBeRG
In a Feb . 13 incident of what commonly is called “ Zoom bombing ,” an organized group used Zoom to disrupt a Laguna Beach City Council meeting with racist , antisemitic and homophobic slurs . None of the disrupters appeared to be Laguna locals . After that incident , the council abruptly halted all remote comments at its meetings and has not restored them .
Local governments in California began to allow such remote public comments during the COVID- 19 pandemic . The pandemic waned , but many city councils , including Laguna ’ s , continued to welcome remote comments as a public service to individuals who have difficulty attending council meetings due to family or work obligations or disability .
Despite numerous Zoom bombings that California public bodies have experienced , a consensus has been reached in California that remote public comments have benefitted everyone . A recent survey of 100 + California cities found that most are successfully using remote comments and believe they “ have been beneficial to city council meetings [,] . . . increased public participation and civic engagement ” and “ not caused significant negative
|
impacts .” The City of San Diego , which has been subjected to numerous Zoom bombings , has continued to permit remote public comments .
Yet , in a June 12 public statement , City Manager Dave Kiff argued that Laguna should not rush to reinstate Zoom out of concern that hateful comments can traumatize meeting participants and City staff and disrupt “ community decorum and city business .”
However , a fundamental tenet of a democratic society is that the occasional abuse of free speech by a few individuals should never serve as a reason to curb the free speech of everyone else . As the US Supreme Court has recognized , “ speech that demeans on the basis of race , ethnicity , gender , religion . . . or any other similar ground is hateful ; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘ the thought that we hate .’”
As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote , government prohibitions against “ speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all . The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government ’ s benevolence . Instead , our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society .”
Mr . Kiff also cited City Attorney Megan Garibaldi ’ s concern that council actions such as those celebrating LGBT + Pride Month and Juneteenth could limit the city ’ s ability to control disruptive comments at council meetings because those comments might then arguably relate to “ city business ” “ In that instance , we ’ d likely have to endure the hateful speech ,” according to Ms . Garibaldi . However , that is not the law .
California ’ s major open meetings statute , the Brown Act requires council to permit members of the public to address the body “ on any item of interest to the public . . . that is within the subject matter
|
jurisdiction of the legislative body .” That jurisdiction is not defined by whatever “ city business ” council may choose to conduct but rather by state law . So a decision by council to address minority rights or , for that matter , any other issue does not alter the City ’ s statutory jurisdiction or limit its ability to regulate public comments to council .
Courts have ruled that the First Amendment allows legislative bodies to impose “ reasonable time , place & manner ” restrictions on public comment periods . Under that rubric , council also has several options to minimize the risk of a reoccurrence of the Feb . 13 disturbance . They include : — barring public comments that actually disrupt or impede a Council meeting , ejecting violators and pressing criminal charges ; — limiting the use of Zoom callins to Laguna locals so long as everyone else is free to comment in person at Council meetings or in writing , a measure recommended by the National School Boards Association ; — verifying the identity of Zoom speakers to confirm they are in fact local ; — invoking existing laws that criminalize fraudulently obtaining access to or violating the terms of service of teleconferencing platforms by , for example , registering under a false address ; and — prohibiting public comments that are obscene , fraudulent or integral to illegal conduct , incite imminent lawless action or threaten violence , none of which enjoy First Amendment protection .
City Council should utilize these options and promptly reinstate remote public comments .
Jim is a retired First Amendment and freedom of information attorney . He served as president of the nation ’ s largest organization of news media lawyers and as lead newsroom counsel for the Orange County Register for more than two decades . He has represented numerous news entities in freedom of information litigation , including landmark cases before the US Supreme Court .
|
The amendment , which is not subjected to the California Environmental Quality Act , does not change these requirements but removes the need for a panel review toward a more administrative procedure to speed up the process for artists obtaining a live-work space .
Sian Poeschl , the city ’ s social and cultural arts manager , shared the inefficiencies within the current process , highlighting the threemember artist review panel review process , considered public meetings , to evaluate each live-work space application being the biggest hurdle .
“ These meetings are … often very short . I think a meeting can last three to four minutes to review an application but requires members of the arts commission to schedule to be here , and sometimes that has proven to be slightly difficult to coordinate everybody ’ s schedules ,” said Poeschl .
On average , the Laguna Beach Arts Commission receives two applications a month , with an estimated total of 20-to-25 applications a year . Before the amendment , applications would take upwards of 30 days to complete the review process . Applicants often withdraw their applications due to lost interest .
The amended ordinance will allow the community development director or the cultural arts manager to review , thus approving or denying permits for artist occupancy within 14 days of receiving an application .
Although the City Council unanimously agreed to amend the city ’ s municipal code , councilmember George Weiss raised a point about the demarcation of power .
“ I don ’ t have a problem with the change . It ’ s just putting ( power ) in one person ’ s hands . It seems like there are no checks and balances ,” said Weiss . Mayor Pro Tem Alex Rounaghi reiterated the need to eliminate extra processes , making it easier for artists to live and work in Laguna Beach . This further reinforced the city ’ s dedication to supporting its thriving art community .
“ I think this is streamlining government and getting rid of unnecessary commissions that just create unnecessary time and energy for everyone , and I think this still achieves the goal of making sure that true artists are living in artist work housing ,” said Rounaghi .
|