RyanMessano1 (@RyanMessano1)

Thousands of city councils around America have policies that restrict speech and target speakers. Policies such as saying speech cannot “disrupt the meeting,” limiting speakers to 1-2 minutes, mandating that speakers must provide their address, stating that speakers must, even on the “items not on the agenda,” portion of the speaking, speak on matters “within the jurisdiction of the city,” all seek to limit and suppress speakers. The First Amendment was to empower virtuous and wise citizens to get up and state unpopular truths about a corrupt government, and sometimes, about corrupt citizens too. It was designed to protect the individual from the mob, as this is how Socrates and Jesus were killed, by unruly mobs who were stirred up by shadow governments, like the one we have now. Yet, these restrictions on speech rarely restrict the language that is restricted by necessary inference by the Constitution, and that is racial slurs, profanity, and pornography, which are all three commonly used in media and in social media across America. Here is the city of Gillette, Wyoming’s citizen comment regulations, and a letter I wrote to them on it. This is extremely important because these same restrictions on allowable speech and a failure to restrict unprotected speech are in thousands of city councils in America, likely 80% of the 19,500 American cities have these same issues. There J’s a good chance these same problems are in the city council meetings in your city council meetings and school board meetings of the city you live in or close to. City Council Meeting Safety and Public Meeting Rules, Gillette, Wyoming https://www.gillettewy.gov/Government/City-Council The purpose of these rules is to allow Council Meetings open to all viewpoints germane to City government business. The rules provide a safe environment for the public, Council, and City staff while preserving order, decorum and minimizing any potential disruption. Speakers Persons seeking to be recognized for public comment must, without exception: State their name State their physical address If speaking on behalf of an organization, identify their position or affiliation The public comment period will be limited to ten (10) minutes total. Speakers must remain behind the podium/lectern. Speakers shall refrain from making comments of a personal nature that reflect upon the character of a Councilperson, the Mayor, City staff, or another speaker. Personal criticism, ridicule, intimidating behavior, and name calling is forbidden. Speakers shall refrain from the use of indecent or obscene language, "fighting words" or other language which is disruptive to the orderly discussion at the meeting. Audience Members Audience members will refrain from distracting side conversations or speaking out when another person is talking. Audience members will refrain from shouting, booing, or other similar unruly behavior that impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of the meeting. Enforcement of Meeting Rules The Governing Body will request that a person violating any Meeting Rules cease the violation. Failure to comply with the Governing Body's warning may result in removal from the Council Chambers, criminal prosecution pursuant to Gillette City Code Section 14-5, recess of the meeting, or any remedy available under Wyoming law. My response: Dear Mayor and Council, I respectfully disagree with the public comment policy. This is a disturbing trend taking place in thousands of cities across America, where elected officials are taking upon themselves the jobs the Constitution gave no elected official: regulating citizens' speech with unconstitutional restrictions. The First Amendment is clear: Citizens have the right to state their opinions. Speakers are given a specific time to address matters not on the agenda. That is great; otherwise, every word uttered at a city council meeting would be dictated by the business interests of the city, which would silence the ordinary citizen. Effectively, the standard policy of limiting comments to items on the agenda silences a large part of the population, as not all citizens have the wealth and power to determine what is put on the agenda. The First Amendment was designed for a virtuous and wise people, as anyone who studies American history easily realizes, but in an age of unprecedented electronic distractions and mass propaganda, the study and comprehension of history in America is at an all-time low. So, since the First Amendment was only for virtuous and wise people, we know that it wasn’t designed for profanity, obscenity, vulgarity, and pornography, which the First Amendment does not protect. And yet, the Supreme Court of this nation doesn’t recognize this obvious fact, so it’s not hard to see why millions in America don’t either. This clause is unconstitutional. “ Speakers shall refrain from making comments of a personal nature that reflect upon the character of a Councilperson, the Mayor, City staff, or another speaker. Personal criticism, ridicule, intimidating behavior, and name-calling are forbidden.” Citizens are free to criticize whatever they please. If what a citizen says is a lie, then a slander lawsuit can be filed against them. But, this clause makes it almost impossible to criticize an elected official for nearly anything, including if they commit a crime. This clause can effectively be used to silence any opinion a member of the council does not like: “Personal criticism, ridicule, intimidating behavior.” Name-calling is a subjective term. If someone were to call a city council member corrupt, ignorant, selfish, arrogant, proud, or any other number of names, I can’t see how the Constitution forbids that. For elected leaders who cannot handle criticism, perhaps elected office isn’t for you. An elected official should be able to take all criticism, and they should strive to possess the truth that can stand against the fiercest criticism. Also, while profanity and racial slurs should indeed be banned, banning “language that is disruptive to the meeting” is far too ambiguous. If Jesus came to your meeting and the Pharisees were in the audience, you’d silence Jesus because the audience didn’t like the truths he was telling. The design of the First Amendment was to allow every citizen to state their opinion. It’s designed for speech that people hate to hear. It’s not intended to protect ideas people love to hear. Stalin and Mao both protected speech they liked to hear. The audience's response is their responsibility. Your rules allow mobs to attend your council meetings and silence citizens with whom they disagree. You will claim the speaker is “disruptive” and remove the speaker rather than removing the disruptive and violent mob, which is a much more challenging task. Still, it’s the right course of action to prevent another Socrates or Jesus from being put to death. Also, asking speakers for their address can lead to problems, as it invites government retribution against citizens who disagree with policies. Citizens should be able to state their opinion and not have to worry about the police showing up to their home, or that the government will inform violent mobs about them, which will lead to the horror of communist Russia and China where 100 million were put to death by the Government and violent mobs. Lastly, ten minutes for public comment is way too short. Speakers should be given 3-5 minutes, and they shouldn’t be interrupted by the council or audience unless they violate the rules above by using profanity or racial slurs. I hope you update your rules to be in accord with the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. Thousands of other cities in America are not living up to the standards of the First Amendment, but what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. Thank you for your attention to this. I have a website with over 1,000 books dealing with free speech and many other issues, which you may enjoy. Most are not available in schools, colleges, libraries, or even on Amazon. http://Messanonews.com I’d like to end with a quote from Michael Crichton, the author of Jurrasic Park. “ If you don't know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree.” I wish you and Gillette all the best, Sincerely yours, Ryan Messano “In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character. It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." Noah Webster http://liberty1.org/virtue.htm