Town of Goa'uld, Arkansas seeks to ban free speech

[Lord Zentei]

I think no further comment is necessary. Just wow.

Gould, Arkansas, is a small town of about 850 people. If the city council has its way, those 850 people will be barred from gathering together to discuss city matters without approval from the city government.

Mayor Earnest Nash is completely opposed to the plan and is willing to go to court rather than see the ordinance pass.

"This is still America," Mayor Nash told Fox 16.

"You just can't vote and violate people's constitutional rights," he said.

Last Monday, the council voted to ban groups from gathering or forming without city approval.

Sonja Farley, a member of the Gould City Council, said that no matter the group, if anyone meets to discuss the city, that meeting must be approved by the city.

"You can't just come in here, get with four people and decide to start an organization," Farley said, adding, "You will go through your city council with legal documentation and get approval."

But Mayor Nash promised he would not sign the ordinance, calling it ludricous that he would not be allowed to meet with citizens to discuss city business.

"They can take me to court," Mayor Nash said pointedly.

Fox 16's Katherine Johnson said the ordinance was "extremely vague," and encompasses "Boy Scout troups, book clubs," and even bans families from discussing city matters at the dinner table.

Johnson said the Mayor vetoed the ordinance on a technicality, but it could be brought up at a council meeting in August and possibly made law without the Mayor's approval.

Johnson also said that if the ordinance was passed, her interview with Mayor Nash and the city council would be illegal.

John DiPippa, Dean of the Law School at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, expressed disbelief when he first read the proposed law.

"The truth is the city of Gould doesn't have the authority to tell anyone that they have no right to petition them, no right to speak and no right to exist in their city," DiPippa told Fox16.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Arkansas town seeks to ban free speech for residents - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... z1T43Puf9C

"The fact is, if it's aimed at this group, it also extends to you talking to your mother or a church group or any other group that wants to form. A garden club! It's so broad that it can't possible comply with the First Amendment," he said.

Fox reports that even the city attorney tried to tell the council the proposal was illegal and violated the First Amendment. In return for his advice, Fox reported that "members tried to fire him."

DiPippa told Fox the ordinance will end up with a lawsuit:

"Unfortunately, it's probably going to lead to a lawsuit, embarrassment and an expense for the city of Gould because this has no chance of being upheld in a court," said DiPippa, adding, according to the ordinance, the conversations Fox16 had with the mayor, council members and the Gould City Advisory Commission on Wednesday were against the law.

"Technically, when they met with you, they violated their own ordinance," said DiPippa.

A post at therightscoop.com notes:

This is tyranny on steroids. I can’t imagine this will stand up in court but it appears that the city council wants to test that theory. Just unbelievable that they would even do this. They must be really crooked if they want to silence people in this manner.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Arkansas town seeks to ban free speech for residents - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... z1T43WOOdp

Yes, it's a Fox affiliate, but.

And sorry about the horrible pun, couldn't resist.

[Bright]

This is the height of absurdity. I'm glad the mayor is standing up to the council, at least.

[Eternal_Freedom]

And I thought I'd seen everything from US politics.

Seriously, how can the council possibly think this might actually either a) be a good thing or b) last longer than a week without it being tested (and failing) in court?

I just cannot understand that kind of thinking!

[Simon_Jester]

You get this once in a while in small rural communities, where the local political structure is dominated by "big fish in a small pond" types who are used to being able to use the 'soft power' of being the local elite to control other people.

They can be quite surprised when this turns out to stop working after their actions are subjected to scrutiny at higher levels.

[Edward Yee]

This is the height of absurdity. I'm glad the mayor is standing up to the council, at least.

It doesn't help that according to Fox (according to the article), even the city attorney didn't stand for it.

Then again, they may not have heard of Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association (ESA), aka "the California video game law" case, where two of the justices declared "too vague even for a law whose spirit we are okay with."

[Big Phil]

WHY does the city council want to pass this ordinance?

[Gil Hamilton]

Sounds a bit like the town Quartzsite, Arizona out here, where the mayor was removed from power by the chief of police and the town council pretty much declared martial law because the Mayor seemed to have determined that the town council was embezzling large amount of money every pay period. Local governments can be pretty damn corrupt when it comes down to it, they are just such small fish that no one cares to do anything.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Well luckily attention is being brought to this situation, so it doesn't get any more out of hand.

[MrDakka]

That town council is obviously the local branch of the Trust.

[Havok]

WHY does the city council want to pass this ordinance?

Thank you. The article doesn't address this at all. What prompted the action?

[Winston Blake]

Arkansas Town Draws a Line on Clubs
By ROBBIE BROWN
Published: July 19, 2011

Be careful before starting a Boy Scout troop in Gould, Ark. Or a Harry Potter fan club. Or a baseball team.

The City Council adopted an ordinance last week making it illegal to form any kind of group without its permission.

That is a clear violation of the Constitution, legal scholars agree. But it is also a sign of just how nasty politics has gotten in Gould, a farming town of 1,100 some 70 miles southeast of Little Rock, where members of the Council have struggled with a local political group that seeks to influence how the town is governed. The mayor, Earnest Nash Jr., also happens to be a member of the political group, the Gould Citizens Advisory Council.

Even by the standards of small-town dramas, Gould’s situation is bleak. The town faces nearly $300,000 in unpaid taxes, and there have been frequent clashes among the mayor, the advisory group and the City Council over how to repay it. Those clashes — and a perception by the City Council that the citizens’ group is seeking too much influence — led to the ban on new organizations.

“I’ve seen some humdingers, but never any ordinance like this,” said Mark Hayes, general counsel for the Arkansas Municipal League, an organization for towns and cities.

And it is not the only ordinance bringing unfavorable attention.

Last week, the Council overrode the mayor’s veto of two other controversial measures. One required that the citizens advisory council cease to exist. The other made it illegal for the mayor to meet with “any organization in any location” either “inside or outside Gould city limits” without the Council’s permission.

The advisory council, which calls itself a nonpartisan group that educates voters and raises money for public causes, says it will continue its work. But the Council, in one ordinance, accused the group of “causing confusion and discourse among the citizens” by harshly criticizing local officials at public meetings.

As a result, the City Council said, “No new organizations shall be allowed to exist in the City of Gould without approval from a majority of the City Council.”

The ordinances were so unusual that one television news anchor, Donna Terrell of Fox 16 News in Little Rock, blurted out on air, “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Political feuds become especially heated in places “where everybody knows everyone,” Ms. Terrell said in an interview.

The ordinances were passed last month, then vetoed by the mayor, and then overridden by the Council on July 12. The mayor said he would go to jail rather than stop meeting with local groups or withdrawing his support from the advisory council.

“These ordinances are blatantly unconstitutional,” Mr. Nash said. “For the most part, people are just ignoring them.”

On Monday, the City Council, too, began backing away. Sonya Farley, a councilwoman, said she would probably vote to rewrite the ordinances with more constitutionally sensitive wording.

But Ms. Farley said the Council was frustrated with the mayor’s tendency to hold community meetings without advertising them to the entire town.

“This ordinance was worded wrong,” she said. “It wasn’t written to stop people from meeting. It was written to treat everybody fairly.”

In the meantime, Mr. Nash said he would continue to do his job exactly as he always had.

“Technically, what I’m doing I guess is illegal,” he said. “But if I’m going to get arrested for meeting with citizens or letting them form their own groups, that’s a pretty good reason to go to jail.”

Seems like some kind of feud between the Council, who want to solve the town's big problems one way, and the Mayor's citizen's group, who want to do things another way.

But the Council, in one ordinance, accused the group of “causing confusion and discourse among the citizens” by harshly criticizing local officials at public meetings.

Oh no! Causing discourse among the citizens? By criticising how things are being run? This cannot go on!

“This ordinance was worded wrong,” she said. “It wasn’t written to stop people from meeting. It was written to treat everybody fairly.”

I've read this a few times and it's hard to see what she means by this. Apparently she views the existence of this citizen's group as inherently 'unfair', thus banning it somehow 'makes things fair'.

[Alkaloid]

Yeah, but going by that article, it also sounds like part of the problem is being caused by people refusing to pay taxes and the Mayor and his Citizens Advisory council are trying to find ways to enable them.

Which is doesn't stop the council from being complete morons, of course, but I think its a bad idea at this point to paint them all as evil monsters trying to crush democracy and the mayor as some sort of hero of the people standing up to the oppressors.

[JME2]

That town council is obviously the local branch of the Trust.

Heh.

Seriously, this is nuts. Glad to see the mayor standing up to them.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm really hoping they meant 'causing confusion and discord' and just said the wrong thing, otherwise thats pretty bleak.

[Irbis]

Technically, isn't the law in question here 'right to gather', not free speech?

[Sute]

Technically, isn't the law in question here 'right to gather', not free speech?

Text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bolding mine.

[Irbis]

Technically, isn't the law in question here 'right to gather', not free speech?

Text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bolding mine.

And? The above text discerns between (by 'or') 'freedom of speech' and 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble', as they are two rights, not one, both very important, but it seems to me the right being restricted is assembly/redress one, not free speech as mentioned in title.

Unless I misread something, that is.

[Simon_Jester]

In this case, since freedom of assembly for the purpose of political speech seems to be banned, freedom of speech, assembly, and petition are all being infringed by the same law, I think.

[Edi]

In this case, since freedom of assembly for the purpose of political speech seems to be banned, freedom of speech, assembly, and petition are all being infringed by the same law, I think.

Indeed. That's a triple whammy of unconstitutional restrictions, so if this were taken to court, I'd expect the session to last about five minutes at most before the law was thrown out on its ear.