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.

▲

G0lg0thvn an hour ago | parent [-]

Really uneducated argument considering you’re just ignoring half of the context.

▲

Manuel_D an hour ago | parent [-]

What context am I ignoring?

▲

text0404 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Dozens of people showed up to the Springfield City Council Meeting on September 22 with plans to let city leaders know how they felt about the city’s use of automated license plate readers. There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue.

▲

Manuel_D 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

That doesn't make make it permissible to try and use the comments periods on other meetings to talk about Flock. The point remains, she was not removed for simply voicing opposition to Flock cameras. The was arrested and removed for trying to derail an unrelated meeting.

Someone going on the stand to rant about abortion during a meeting on sidewalk codes would similarly get removed.

	▲	text0404 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The person saying your comment is ignorant probably doesn't care about the procedural rules. Instead, it's because you're placing disproportionate emphasis on citizens following meeting rules instead of being concerned that they're denied the ability to speak about policies that directly affect them in a democracy.