(GREENSBORO, NC) Although Greensboro city council routinely allows multimedia presentations by speakers from the floor, according to Eric Ginsberg, at the May 18th, 2010 meeting, Greensboro assistant city manager Mike Speedling and city manager Rashad Young prohibited him from showing a video because of who appears in it. Ginsberg wanted to deliver a recorded message from Cherrell Brown who has been banned from city council meetings for two years for her involvement in a peaceful demonstration at the May 4th, 2010 meeting (video).
Ginsberg called the prohibition "a pretty dangerous threat to freedom of speech in our city."
I agree.
Ginsberg responded by reading the text of Brown's recorded remarks. Here is Ginsberg's appearance at the May 18th meeting.
Here is the video that, according to Brown, she asked Ginsberg to show during speakers from the floor:
The video: Isn't the democratic process being subverted when they interrupt meetings? No one has a right to do that, not even Bill Burckley (who learned his lesson the first time while these folks kept coming back to disrupt meetings).
ReplyDeleteThe banning: She has been banned from council meetings because the city can not conduct business when she is present. I don't understand why refusing to play her video is any different. The fact is, citizens can get much more done outside of council meetings. I don't think any council member would refuse to have lunch with this group and discuss issues. Of course, that means no on-air time but meetings only give you 3 mminutes whereas a lunch or sit-down can be much more productive.
It seems like these folks are more interested in stirring the pot rather than seeking resolution.
Are these students actually from Greensboro? Will they remain after they graduate? Do they genuinely care about the city or are they just attention starved?
The demonstration did not interrupt a meeting. As I understand your position, it is that persons associated with people deemed pot- stirrers should have the content of their time during public speeking censored by government employees. That is a dangerous view and I disagree with it.
ReplyDeleteAnswer this hypothetical, Brandon. Suppose I wanted to go to the next city council meeting and play Brown's video as part of my commentary about the city censoring speakers -- using the video to illustrate my view that the city banned something completely legal. Should I be prohibited from that?
ReplyDeleteRoch, do you consider it dangerous that she was banned? If not, what is the difference in banning her from speaking to the council on video. Has she even attempted a sit-down with council-members, away from the tv cameras?
ReplyDeleteWhy would you play her video at a meeting when you know she is not welcome because of her behavior? It seems like you would be engaging in the same kind of unproductive and disturbing behavior as the rest of her group.
There is a reason she was banned and it had nothing to do with the serious allegations she has made.
I would suggest instead of talking down to Matheny, go talk to Bellamy if one is really concerned with how he is running his police department. I'm sure Young and Speedling are all ears also.
There is much more to council meetings than speakers from the floor and there are many other ways to address issues. You of all people should understand what is going on here. You have fought the city to address very real and serious issues and I'm not sure you and Sam would have accomplished much by engaging in the same tactics as these folks.
Answer this hypothetical: What purpose would playing the video serve? It seems the video doesn't even address the grievances of the group with regard to police or racism. The video is in response to comments Matheny made about their group. They are obviously more concerned with group-image than city issues.
Oh yeah, ^^^that's me, Brandon. I know I didn't fully address your hypothetical but it seems so unreasonable that you would feel the need to play a video about nothing, from a person who is banned from meetings, just to comment on the banning of videos from an individual that engaged in the same mindless and disruptive behavior in person. At least before, the group appeared to have legitmate concerns.
ReplyDeleteRoch, I think it is also noteworthy that Mr. Ginsberg expected the video to not be played. Why would he expect that if this his request is reasonable? He says it's what he expected from "this council". What in the world does that mean? Why would he expect what he perceives as unfair treatment from our council. Week after week our council has listened to this group and they would have continuued to do so had they not broke the law. Ginsberg still gets his time on the floor because he hasn't broken the law in council chambers.
ReplyDeleteSo again, it is apparent that this group expects and even relishes in controversy. What else has this group done to address their issues. other than making a scene at meetings?
Are you going to take a stab at answering my question, Brandon?
ReplyDeleteI will. If you subverted the ban to provide Ms. Brown with a means to address council during a meeting, I think it could be reasonably argued that you should also be banned from meetings.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think Ginsberg expected what he perceived as unfair treatment from a council that has been tolerant of his group's presentations so far? I don't think the council has demonstrated any animosity towards the group until they broke the law and even then, city staff decides if they are banned, right? Not Mathany, not Knight. I could be wrong on that but anyway...
Does it not bother you that Mr.Ginsberg and Ms. Brown wanted to make a presentation that has nothing to do with city business or city related issues? This is a matter that they should have contacted Mathany personally to settle.
Didn't they cut Hartzman off for attacking Mathany? Besides, they allowed Ginsberg to read Brown's words so she had her forum and was able to communicate with council during a meeting even after she has been banned from meetings.
Frankly, this group is inconsiderate of the nature of council meetings. You yourself have called into question the validity of the vague but serious allegations put forth by this group that has provided very little in the way of evidence. Ginsberg was provided with an opportunity to address council about city related issues and he chose to read some non-sensical personal attack on Mathany. It is obvious that he does not value his 3 minutes.
"As I understand your position, it is that persons associated with people deemed pot- stirrers should have the content of their time during public speeking censored by government employees."
ReplyDelete--Roch, that is not my position, not at all. This "presentation" has absolutely nothing to do with city business or issues raised by the group. From what I understand, all multimedia presentations are screened first right? This is the equivalent of me speaking to the council during a meeting about what I just ate for dinner. Do I have the right to do that?
I am all for this group and anyone else addressing council on city issues.
"...using the video to illustrate my view that the city banned something completely legal."
ReplyDelete--The presentation was not censored because of illegal content. It was censored because Ginsberg was essentially yielding his time to a speaker who was banned.
Roch, answer this hypothetical: Should Ms. Brown, after being banned from meetings, be allowed to address council during meetings via Skype? Why or why not?
Are you going to answer my question?
ReplyDeleteI think we are just going to disagree on this one, Brandon. You have given a large number of reasons why someone should be prohibited from speaking. For me, I do not want, nor do I think it would be legal, for city staff to test speakers comments for being not welcome, better discussed elsewhere, stirring the pot, genuinely caring about the city, unproductive, of dubious motivation, controversial, or inconsiderate -- all reasons you have offered in this thread as legitimate reasons for censorship.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I find it quit shocking that you think it proper for a government employee to prohibit a speaker for the reasons you articulated above. It shows a remarkable lack of understanding for the First Amendment and the role of government officials. But, that's just my opinion.
Roch, Ms. Brown is banned. Ginsberg attempted to yield his time to allow Ms. Brown to speak to council. The reasoning behind not allowing the video to be presented is very clear to me.
ReplyDeleteI never, NEVER stated that "pot-stirrers" should not be allowed to talk. She broke the law and is banned. It's very simple. Had she not broke the law and been banned, I would have absolutely no problem with her speaking, unless of course her comments are just personal attacks on a councilman who she doesn't agree with; comments that have nothing to do with the function of city government.
I did answer your question. I stated that if you assisted Ms. Brown in subverting the ban resulting from her illegal actions, then you to should be banned. Now, if you chose to take a path different from Ginsberg, and decided to address council on issues of police brutality and institutional racism, then I have no problem with that. Again, Ginsberg chose to use his 3 minutes to address a personal beef with Mathany. I have a problem with that.
"...test speakers comments for being not welcome, better discussed elsewhere, stirring the pot, genuinely caring about the city, unproductive, of dubious motivation, controversial, or inconsiderate -- all reasons you have offered in this thread as legitimate reasons for censorship."
ReplyDelete--This is a load of BS Roch. I never said that speakers should be prohibited or censored on any of these grounds. See my last comment on why I feel the censoring was called for. That is the ONLY reason I feel the censorship was legitimate. My mentioning of these things was only in reference to the bigger picture of how this activist group has chosen to disrupt city business and public meetings.
Should I be prohibited from showing Brown's video? It's a simple question and I am not going to ask you to answer it a fourth time.
ReplyDeleteYes you should. I'm not going to answer again. She has been banned from council meetings which includes speakers from the floor. A video of her addressing council, being played during someone else's 3 minutes is simply a loophole, inappropriate and inconsiderate.
ReplyDeleteRoch, I could see the logic behind arguing that she should have never been banned in the first place and to be honest, the notion a citizen being banned doesn't sit well with me. This is why I asked if you thought it would be appropriate for her, being banned, to address council via Skype. I could see that being argued effectively either way.
ReplyDeleteBut the logic behind not allowing someone who is banned to make video presentations to address the council meetings just seems very clear to me.
As I said, your position betrays a lack of appreciation for the principals of freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteI don't see it that way at all. Tell me Roch, do you agree with the woman being banned? If so, how is it hard to understand that she gets no screen time during council meetings.
ReplyDeleteAgain, my take on this is based on the premise that her being banned is legitimate, which I don't necessarily agree with. If she is banned, then she is banned. No movies.
How can you justify her being allowed to address council when she has been banned from addressing council during council sessions?
I do not know the justification offered for her ban. I would consider a threat to public safety or the need for council to conduct its business legitimate reasons for a ban, though I would be very slow to employ a ban as a solution. (Banning the guy who came to commissioners' meetings with what he claimed were bombs strapped to his body was a matter or public safety and appropriate.)
ReplyDeleteDisallowing somebody else, even me in making a point about censorship, from showing her on video during speakers from the floor is not to protect public safety or the council's ability to function. It is punitive retribution and entirely improper in our Constitutional republic.
This is not the first time we have butted heads over your lack of respect for the civil liberties our Constitution guarantees. Previously, we argued over your misunderstanding of the Fourth Amendment. As I recall though, you are interested in furthering your education on the Constitution. This looks like a good book, I haven't read it, but I'm going to buy it. Maybe you might want to get a copy too -- or you can borrow mine when I'm done.
Roch, what you view as free speech, I view as a loophole. It's very simple. I don't view Ginsburg's presentation as "a presentation on govt censorship"; I view it as a personal attack on a council-member from a citizen who forfeited her right to participate in city council meetings.
ReplyDeleteI don't think characterizing my view as "disrespect for civil liberites" is accurate or fair.
Say Hennis is still banned from county meetings. Is it appropriate for you to play a multimedia presentation of him addressing the board about how he doesn't like Alston's characterization of his cause? I wouldn't think so and I don't see this situation as any different.
Looking at the bigger picture, I think the fact that Ms. Brown and Mr. Ginsburg chose to use their 3 minutes in such a manner speaks to the motivation behind this activist group. Ginsburg could've addressed police issues or race issues. Instead, he chose to play a game that he stated he expected to lose.
In a nutshell, I've had some enlightening and embarassing experiences with activists in the past. Because of this, I tend to take a skeptical attitude towards causes; especially when I see activists engaging in the same kind of behavior as those I've interacted with here in Greensboro, in the past.
Roch, I think it is also worth noting that there are many reasons why I view this group and their actions with such skepticism, making it difficult for me to separate this issue from the bigger picture.
ReplyDeleteI attended the meeting in February from which I believe this group was spawned. I didn't like what I heard then. It was essentially 2 hours of "The Problem" section of their blog repeated, with about as little information.
Considering that I have been arrested by both Blake (outside of his capacity as a member of the gang squad) and the gang squad itself, I feel that my view is just as valid as anyone elses.
When I consider the content of this presentation, the hypocrisy in supporting Blake who is reported by victims of the gang unit to have filed false charges against King Jay, along with a host of other issues, it is difficult to view this as anything more than a game and a stunt, much like the act of "civil disobedience" that took place weeks ago. In other words, I have tried to get involved, I am intimately familiar with the issues at hand and I'm not just talking out of my ass.
"Roch, what you view as free speech, I view as a loophole."
ReplyDeleteRight. I'm clear on your opinion, Brandon, which is why I wish you'd pursue some further education on the Constitution.
Roch, where in the constitution does it address the issue of persons banned from city council meetings because of breaking the law in council chambers, being/not being able to address council during meetings via multimedia presentation?
ReplyDeleteI wish you would be more direct and offer evidence to support your position. The first amendment to the Constitution does not address city council meetings. It also doesn't address public safety but you make that distinction when it's convenient for you.
As far as my education on the Constitution, I am slowly working my way through the federalist papers and related material it is quite apparent that the founders of USA did not set much in stone. The constitution is certainly open to interpretation by the courts and citizens. Again, no mention of the issue of speech and public safety so don't pretend that has anything to do with the first amendment as it was written. That distinction was made by courts.
"Again, no mention of the issue of speech and public safety so don't pretend that has anything to do with the first amendment as it was written."
ReplyDeleteI am not. It has bearing as the First Amendment is applied. The Constitution addresses very few circumstances in their specifics, that's why I think you would benefit from learning about how the general principals of the Constitution have been applied to specific circumstances by the Supreme Court over the years -- it's why I recommended that book.
But Roch, you said I lack respect for free speech. That is not so. I may be ignorant of court opinions regarding free speech and it is entirely possible that other justices and myself may not agree with those opinions. You lack respect for the opinion of others. This is not a right or wrong issue.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, these folks raise issues dealing with fundamental rights. In this instance, both individuals chose to address council about something that has nothing to do with the city. That is disrespectful and inconsiderate of the nature of business conducted at city council meetings.
Ah, but since Ginsburg broke no law,
the council welcomes him to come waste their time next meeting to! No violation of his right to petition his govt. No violation of his right to free speech. I'm sorry you refuse to acknowledge or are unable to comprehend my point of view.
"But Roch, you said I lack respect for free speech."
ReplyDeleteNo, I did not.
"This is not a right or wrong issue."
Yes it is. And your understanding of when speech may be lawfully squelched is wrong.
Still no evidence to support your point of view? Precedents? Case law? Founding documents?
ReplyDeleteI stated why I view this situation I do; inside and out; micro and macrocosm. All you do is tell me I'm wrong, wrong, wrong. That is no way to debate or educate.
I am sorry, Brandon. It is nothing personal but you lack the basic foundations. I don't have the time to instruct you. Your request for precedents, case law and documents is reasonable, and that would be a great avenue for you to explore, I just don't have the time, but my interest in your education is why I suggested the book.
ReplyDeleteNo problem Roch. Thanks for the exercise. If Ms. Brown or Mr. Ginsburg happen to read this thread, I would love to hear your opinions on this and other issues in a one on one setting. Feel free to email me at 321sunup@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteI enjoy our discussions, Brandon, and I'm sorry that this one got to the point where the effort it deserved became too great on my end.
ReplyDeleteI just bought "The People's History of the Constitution." You are welcome to borrow it when I am finished (which might be a while). I skimmed another book on the shelf that also looked very good and is a quicker read. It is The Citizen's Constitution: An Annotated Guide.
Relevant to our discussion, see what you can learn about what the Supreme Court has said about "prior restraint."
I also enjoy them. I will try to read up on what you mentioned.
ReplyDelete"Are these students actually from Greensboro? Will they remain after they graduate? Do they genuinely care about the city or are they just attention starved?"
ReplyDeleteBrandon- yes, I was actually a student in Greensboro. I attended Guilford College for four years and graduated in May 2010. And yes, I am still here, remaining after I graduate. Wesley Morris who was arrested in the discussed action graduated A&T already and has remained here.
The real question is do the City Council members care about our city or are they just interested in power, image, and prestige?
-Eric Ginsburg
While I got tired of reading this entire back and forth, I do want to comment on one other thing I read. It was stated above (by Brandon Burgess) that he expects the council members would agree to meet with us and we could have done this differently. He also suggests that maybe we didn't even try to meet with them.
ReplyDelete1. We had already met with Mayor Knight at this point.
2. We spoke at numerous Council meetings preceding the civil disobedience. We were almost entirely ignored, despite turning out dozens of people in support.
3. Trudy Wade, my representative, continues to ignore my requests for a meeting. I have emailed and called her and received no response.
As to your comment about my personal attack on Matheny, I was reading Cherrell's statement. When I said I was adding my own words I expanded her statement to be just about him to being about everyone on Council. What council members do and say on issues is of public interest and Council's time, even if you think it's of a personal nature.
-Eric Ginsburg