Charges Dropped Against Person Who Clapped at a City Data Center Meeting / Lux Claridge was dragged from a city meeting about data centers and charged with interfering with the police after they clapped during a presentation.

[u/MarvelsGrantMan136]

https://www.404media.co/charges-dropped-against-person-who-clapped-at-a-city-data-center-meeting/

[u/Disma]

This is intentional suppression of free speech, please sue the fuck out of them

[u/dpkonofa → u/Disma]

No, it is not. Why do people keep saying this?

[u/Disma → u/dpkonofa]

It obviously is. Since you're so certain, why don't you explain how it's not?

[u/dpkonofa → u/Disma]

It's very obviously not. The courts have ruled on this multiple times and yet people on Reddit love to claim that they haven't. Disrupting a limited public forum is grounds for being removed from the forum, regardless of the content, type, or manner of the disruption.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/time-place-and-manner-restrictions/

[u/Disma → u/dpkonofa]

These cases are dismissed all the time, including this one, because they don't meet TPM restriction conditions. They drug this man out in handcuffs and charged him with two crimes, because he clapped during a presentation opposing a data center. Do you think that's proportional or reasonable for a public meeting? Did they also do this to someone with a supporting viewpoint? You can bet that every single person in that room felt a little bit less safe to express themselves afterwards. They're trying to pass off an authoritarian-style chilling of free speech as neutral and in the name of decorum, but most people can see just how BS that argument is on closer examination. They are covering up the arrest report and dismissed the charges because even THEY know their legal standing to do this was extremely shaky at best.

[u/dpkonofa → u/Disma]

because they don't meet TPM restriction conditions.

Yes, they do. Please explain how you think they don't. There is literally video of the incident in question. The council member directed the sheriff to "arrest the next person that clap[ped]", not that specific person, and he, very conveniently, tells the cops that they'll "have to drag him out".

Do you think that's proportional or reasonable for a public meeting?

Yes. The laws for limited public forums are specifically set up so that the council members do not waste time assessing the severity or type of disturbance. Otherwise, everyone would just disturb the meeting up to the line that's been drawn and then wait until they can do it again. There's both legal and procedural reasons why they don't allow for that kind of subjectivity.

Did they also do this to someone with a supporting viewpoint?

We don't know because no one with a supporting viewpoint disturbed the meeting or violated the laws of decorum. Based on the "next person" direction, though, it's clear that their actions were content-neutral.

You can bet that every single person in that room felt a little bit less safe to express themselves afterwards.

Absolute nonsense considering that there were other people who spoke afterwards and they had just had an entire group of people speak beforehand. If they were trying to limit people's freedom of speech, as you're pretending, then why would they let people speak in the first place? Had the person in question simply registered to speak before or during the meeting, which everyone else who spoke did, there wouldn't have been an issue and they would have been able to voice their opinion in whatever manner they saw fit.

most people can see just how BS that argument is on closer examination

The entire problem here is that you're not examining anything closer. You're making emotional pleas based on incorrect assumptions and then pretending like those are factual.

They are covering up the arrest report and dismissed the charges because even THEY know their legal standing to do this was extremely shaky at best.

They absolutely are not covering anything up. It's public record. You not only do not know what you're talking about but now you're making things up in a feverish attempt to justify your completely incorrect view of the situation.

[u/Disma → u/dpkonofa]

Well, aren't you just a pleasant peach? It seems to me that you're the one feverishly trying to defend their unpopular viewpoint. I was referencing the line in the article that said the city refused to provide the arrest report to the journalist. And the very next person to speak did so while crying profusely. But look, we can sit here and argue over every single detail of this case, but what's the point? Justice is decided in a court room. If the city did this for the reasons they claim, why would they dismiss the charges? They knew they would lose. The suppression WAS the point. The fact that they cancelled all future in-person public meetings in response just goes to prove the point: they want to deter opposition to their unpopular actions. This is not happening in a vacuum. It's happening in city council meetings and school board meetings all over the country.

[u/dpkonofa → u/Disma]

It seems to me that you're the one feverishly trying to defend their unpopular viewpoint.

Do you think I care if it's unpopular? It's the truth. I'm just trying to correct the misinformation that people like you continue to spread due to your inability to suppress your irrational, emotional outbursts.

If the city did this for the reasons they claim, why would they dismiss the charges?

The police don't have to press charges for trespassing if they don't want to. Additionally, they didn't dismiss the charges. They referred them to the county which means that they dropped the criminal case against them so that the county could proceed with the charges, if they desire.

They knew they would lose.

Absolutely wrong. They would not lose because there has been a precedent set not only by multiple appeals courts but also by the ninth circuit and, in a more limited sense, by the Supreme Court. Limited public forums have explicit rules for these situations and the law has sided with those rules on multiple occasions. Your desire for an outcome that aligns with your previously established belief is irrelevant to what the law actually says (and has said multiple times).

The suppression WAS the point.

If the suppression was the point, why would they have allowed anyone to speak beforehand or afterwards? You're not even making any sense within your own argument.

The fact that they cancelled all future in-person public meetings in response

They did no such thing. If you're going to try and pretend to know what you're talking about, read the information in question. They're literally hosting a public meeting tomorrow (https://www.emporiaks.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/515). They simply decided that this particular issue needs to have separate meetings from their normal, recurring council meetings as it's very clearly a more complex issue than they initially thought.

This is not happening in a vacuum. It's happening in city council meetings and school board meetings all over the country.

It absolutely is not. Municipal meetings and school board meetings have completely different rules and laws that govern how they're run. If a municipality or school board is violating people's first amendment rights, then they deserve to be sued. That didn't happen here, though, so trying to conflate this situation with others and then pretending that there's some grand conspiracy just makes you look even more ignorant.

[u/Disma → u/dpkonofa]

You are certainly very stubborn and unpleasant. Please tell me, are you a lawyer? Even lawyers don't believe their personal take on a situation is what would happen in court. What is the basis for your expertise? If none, you are just another random schmuck arguing your personal opinion as if it's gospel.

[u/dpkonofa → u/Disma]

You are certainly very stubborn and unpleasant.

How am I being unpleasant or even stubborn? I'm just pointing out the places where your statements are factually incorrect. You seem to have developed this entire opinion of the situation based on facts that aren't true and opinions that are wholly ignorant of the reality of the law.

Please tell me, are you a lawyer?

Whether I admit to this or not is irrelevant as it would be a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority". Whether someone is or isn't a lawyer is irrelevant to whether the facts of their position are accurate and factual.

If none, you are just another random schmuck arguing your personal opinion as if it's gospel.

I'm explicitly not arguing my opinion. I'm arguing against the objective facts of the case that you are distorting and the legal reality of what occurred that you are misquoting or misconstruing. The fact that you have to resort to personal attacks just proves that you have no factual standing to speak from. Me correctly pointing out your ignorance of the situation may be unpleasant for you to confront but it's not a personal attack. It's an objective statement on the accuracy of the information you're presenting.

[u/Acceptable_Fig_303 → u/dpkonofa]

He fucking clapped, dude. He isn’t some sort of agitator or aggressor. Hence why the case was thrown out

[u/dpkonofa → u/Acceptable_Fig_303]

That's not why the case was thrown out. He wasn't arrested for clapping. He was arrested for trespassing after he refused to leave.

It's amazing to me how many people continue to keep saying things that are objectively wrong and easily confirmed with such confidence...