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?

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)