No, we do not. Throwing a tantrum is not conducive. If you actually cared about preventing the proliferation of flock cameras, you would hate this woman's actions. No solid arguments, no discussions, just making the opposition look like fools who just have rage and are using this case to feel important.

The middle finger itself is protected speech. It does not create immunity for disruptive conduct at a public meeting, and omitting the conduct immediately before the arrest is misleading.

She got what she deserved. You can criticize. You cannot disrupt a public meeting and abuse people from the floor.

>Why does a city council installing Flock cameras deserve respect?

Because making respect contingent on "whether you agree with the issue or not" is a great way to make everything devolve into partisan tribes, eg. "anti-abortionists: why do baby killers deserve respect?"

This must be parody, do you not understand the basics of a functioning society?

Act like a child, expect to be treated like one.

The article does have some context:

"""The move passed 5 - 3, the crowd shouted at city leaders, and Schrag ordered citizens to clear the room and shut off cameras recording the event. As people left, police detained and ticketed Noah Powell. Later in the evening Mia Heider tried to speak out about Flock during public comments about a housing issue. Police arrested her while Schrag looked on. “Sorry ma’m,” the mayor said as police led Heider away in handcuffs."""

Without defending anybody, it is generally disruptive to talk about a topic that is not on the current agenda but opinions differ on whether that can lead to an arrest. If you've ever run one of these council meetings, you'll quickly see there are folks who just want to disrupt the process or make it go very slowly (these things often wrap up after midnight).

That statement was directed about the trend of posting videos of people getting dragged away from council meetings, in general, not this particular story.

In this particular story, Heider was using the comment period on an unrelated issue to voice her complaints about Flock. Hence her removal once it became clear she was not talking about the issue at hand.

> Heider explained that she waited until the public comment period for a different issue, filled out a form to talk, and then got up to deliver a written statement about Flock cameras.

At a high level it's the same thing: people trying to use public comment periods for protests, rather than actually engage with the topic.

Consider this: what if at every public comments periods, anti-abortion activists incessantly took the stand at unrelated meetings to rant about abortion providers? This becomes so pervasive that good faith community members who actually want to engage with the topic at hand have reduced opportunity to speak. Of course removal of the former is justified if they refuse to abide by the rules of the council meetings.

The time was for speaking about building development codes.

Contrary to what some seem to believe, public discussions are not open-mic night.

Your comment would be much better without the last sentence.

She exceeded the allotted time to speak about the topic of Flock cameras, by starting to talk about them at all during the portion of the meeting about a housing issue. These meetings are about specific topics, not an "every citizen gets X minutes at the podium" free-for-all.

Your only other submitted story this year has been promoting Flock's "new safety standards. Most of your recent posts are trying to promote flock. I wonder if you actually attend any local neighborhood meetings.

Did you read the article?

Did you read the article?

Violent threats only sound like a good idea if you can only imagine them being used by people you agree with.

A society that let small mobs carrying torches dictate your laws would not be good for you, me, or anyone other than the most violent vocal minority.

Threaten elected officials with violence to achieve political aims? That seems counterproductive.

And please make Bastille Day from Rush to be the soundtrack for this.

Imminent threats of violence are not covered by the First Amendment.

Peaceful gatherings are covered.

Gather up a dozen friends, dress like Indians and throw the politician in the harbor. Yes I know I'm mixing and matching historical references, that's the point. Have one guy dressed as Elizabeth Warren, another guy like the redskins mascot and a third guy as Abu from the Simpsons like they didn't understand the assignment. The point is to maximize the meme-ability of it so that you get a court of public opinion trial and not the usual kangaroo court trial that people who thumb their nose at government get.