According to TFA, the "folks who just want to disrupt the process" seem to be the city council and the mayor, not their constituents who came to give public comments about something that affects them:

> The council was set to vote on Jensons’ proposed review on Monday and hear comments from the community. But when the resolution came up during the meeting, Mayor Schrag immediately pushed to send it to a committee and avoid public comment.

In a democracy, it's generally disruptive to prevent constituents from petitioning for redress of grievances.

▲

dekhn 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

Is saying the following (different person said this, but was also arrested) a petition for redress of grievances?

"""“Well, I said: ‘Jeff Schrag is a cuck.’ I said: ‘Fuck you Jeff.’ I said: ‘Worthless’ and then, also, the final thing I said was: ‘Jeff Schrag has a tiny, stinky, cock,’” Powell explained. “I just let myself get handcuffed and let them do whatever power trip they wanted to do. Got my ticket and left.”"""

I like democracy and I want people to have their voice heard but city council meetings are about getting business done, and they don't guarantee that every single person will be able to speak at length about their grievances.

▲

text0404 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Is saying the following (different person said this, but was also arrested) a petition for redress of grievances?

Yes, and it's protected by the first amendment.

> they don't guarantee that every single person will be able to speak at length about their grievances.

In this case, they didn't let anyone speak at any length about their grievances. Hence this article.

▲

dekhn 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

No, insulting a person is not a petition for redress of grievances. To do so, you must actually state a grievance. In this case Powell just wanted to insult the city council.

	▲	text0404 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's Powell. Heider was also arrested and prevented from petitioning for redress of grievances, going back to my point: > In a democracy, it's generally disruptive to prevent constituents from petitioning for redress of grievances. The real "disruption" here is the fact that the council and the mayor refuse to listen to their constituents, not that some of those constituents are angry about it.