Got it. Couple more questions:

- Have you ever spoken at a public meeting? How'd your experience go?

- Do you think the person thought they had zero possibility of getting arrested for that?

I have spoken at public meetings. It was all routine. I signed up, spoke about the topic of interest, kept within the time limit, and was polite. It was also ineffective.

I don't think the individual who was arrested thought they would be arrested. From how I read the article, they were just confused about whether they could speak about the topic they wanted to speak about in that part of the meeting, and then, when things got heated, immediately went to giviing people the finger. It's not really surprising- these events can get very heated and people's instincts take over. I think if she had an indication she was going to be arrested, she likely would have waited until the topic came up in a future meeting.

BTW, from the nature of your questions and my experience on the internet, you may be trying to lay a trap where you use my words to show a logical contradiction (or you could just be asking questions in good faith- hard to tell on the internet these days). If that's your goal, please wrap up, I don't want to sit here answering questions about my beliefs.

▲

chaps an hour ago | parent [-]

Not setting up a trap, I'm just genuinely interested in where you're coming from because, frankly, I don't get it. Sorry you've had bad experiences on the internet and thanks for your patience.

Why do you think your public comment was ineffective?

▲

dekhn an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't get what you don't get?

City Councils are business meetings. They typically follow an agenda, and have rules and sometimes there are court cases around people speaking at city council. My fundamental attitude is that if you want to contribute to a city council meeting without being arrested, you cannot assume your free speech rights trump all the other rules and practices being followed. In this case, the individual who was arrested violated a rule. The council acted within its rights (subject to any future court cases); personally I think it was a bit overhanded, but if they hadn't acted, the meeting would very likely have devolved into chaos.

My beliefs are based on standard social studies courses about US civic society combined with watching the Berkeley City Council meeting repeatedly get disrupted by individuals.

For the comment- it was ineffective because it failed to convince the council to vote the way I wanted (and this was so long ago that I can't even remember the topic.). Here's an article from my hometown describing somebody else who was more disruptive: https://www.courant.com/2000/05/16/city-watchdog-sydney-libb.... """City officials used to complain that arresting Libby mattered little because the judicial system seemed not to take him seriously. That changed in April 1997 when an exasperated Superior Court judge, tired of Libby’s courtroom behavior, threw him in jail and ordered Libby to undergo a mental competency exam.""" (we had several other people who would routinely disrupt as well)

	▲	chaps 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What I'm not really understanding is why "a bit overhanded" is a small throwaway point. Speaking from Chicago where we have very notorious public speakers at city council and it's one of those that's-just-what-happens things. I've also done a fair amount of research/reporting on criminal courts where the idea of arresting someone for giving the middle finger to city council absolutely fucking floors me. So a lot of my questions are oriented around trying to understand why getting arrested is such a (seemingly) small deal. - Do you think Springfield could have handled the situation better without arresting her?