What context am I ignoring?

> 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 an hour 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 an hour 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.

	▲	Manuel_D 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		But they're not being denied the ability to speak. Heider can go hold a protest against Flock in public. She's only being denied the ability to speak in the very specific circumstance of a public comment period on sidewalk codes.