I know it's loud. I know I shouted. But I was not banned for that.
Today, Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti BANNED Zuma Dogg from his First Amendment PROTECTED SPEECH for the next two city council meetings for "profane/slanderous" comments.
The profane/slanderous comment was that I called them "losers" for losing $7 BILLION in pension money on risky "non-investment grade" funds and real estate scams that are now being investigated by NY Attorney General, California Attorney General, SEC and other watchful eyes.
I didn't call them "assholes." I didn't call them "criminals" (which could be considered libelous unless they have been proven guilty. That drives Eric crazy when another speaker calls them "criminals" and the speaker has been banned for that.)
I simply called them, "losers" for LOSING $7 Billion in pension money, and now the city is looking at bankruptcy and this agenda item was about "bankruptcy protection" (OH, YEAH...an agenda item about "BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION" was on today's L.A. City Council agenda.)
So during an item about "bankruptcy protection" where the $7 billion in pension loss is certainly going to be the key factor, I do not see any legal justification for banning someone for calling the body as an anonymous entitey, "losers."
Greig Smith shouted out to me, "So are we." Then people on the city's side of the rope started laughing...all of it distracting to the speaker, and Mr. Smith's interuption could be considered a clear BROWN ACT VIOLATION.
So watch the clip and ask yourself if saying, "I know I wouldn't have bankrupt the city, losers." In response to Mr. Smith being glad ZD is not a Councilmember. Maybe I will have to try and become one to make him "unhappy."
This is not a case where I begrude Eric Garcetti in a way that would cause me to blow a gasket and dump a bunch of bad PR on him via this blog. He is representing the City Council and their position is you can't call them losers. But I do not feel it is profane/slanderous. AND, the FIRST AMENDMENT protects free speech to be MUCH more uncomfortable than what Council tolerates.
They say WE get it easy, but Council needs to re-read the First Amendment, because you actually have to endure some pretty uncomfortable stuff. The law is on my side on this one.
So I will handle this very matter of factly and this does not qualify as some of the stuff that REALLY pisses me off over that can cause some very uncomfortable blog posts.
Remember, this was not over being too loud. It was over profane/slander. And the First Amendment allows for this type of speech and much more harsh. So if they want to open up the can of worms, maybe Zuma Dogg will actually end up being able to get away with MUCH MORE than he ever even cared to get away with, but will be forced to carry through, as a First Amendment excersice.
I know it's been seemingly rougher than ever to endure ZD's public comment, BUT THERE MUST BE AN OUTLET TO EXPRESS THIS TYPE OF OUTRAGE AND PART OF YOUR JOB IS THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT AT THE LEVEL IT WAS DELIVERED BY ZUMA DOGG TODAY.
I THINK YOU WILL SEE WE ARE RIGHT AND THEN IT WILL COME BACK WORSE. (And I don't need Greig Smith interrupting ME when I'm speaking. I'm not the loser who allowed all of this to be lost under his un-watchful eye. When Zuma Dogg speaks, people all across the city are paying attention, so it's important city business...much more important than anything he ever says.
Councilmembers are getting a little too arrogant and smug at a time they should be shutting the fuck up and listening to the only person in chambers that has been correct about everything all along, while you are flapping your dumb traps, hollering a bunch of jibber-jabber non-sense that drove the City into a bankruptcy talk today after you kicked me out, cowards.
THERE, I DIDN'T EVEN CALL ERIC GARCETTI A SHADY CRYBABY FOR BANNING ME FOR THE WRONG REASONS.
HOWEVER, I will remind you, can one guy just blurt out, "you're banned for two meetings" cause he fucking feels like it. Don't you think council needs to vote on something like that, first?
Hmmmm. So ONE guy can make a decison like that, which could end up costing the city in a lawsuit, that other councilmembers will also be responsible for, because ERIC FUCKING FELT LIKE IT.
CITY ATTORNEY INTERRUPTS FREE SPEECH TO SAY, "COULD BE DISRUPTIVE" OVER THE TERM, "LAZY ASS." (SORRY, LAZY ASS IS NOT ILLEGAL. YOU INTERRUPTED ME, AS DID GRIEG SMITH, AS DID ERIC GARCETTI. YOU WILL BE SUED! I WILL WIN!!!) Watch "BONUS VIDEO" below to see the evidence.
NOW, watch Eric Garcetti violate the Brown Act (CLICK LINK FOR VIDEO) by interrupting me because he didn't like the way I was saying it. HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU PEOPLE...THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT USE CERTAIN TONES AND INFLECTIONS IN YOUR VOICE WHEN SPEAKING WORDS. Think about it. It wasn't WHAT I was saying...NOW, it's the tone and inflections you use as well. HAVE TO KEEP IT RESPECTFUL, NOW YA HEAR! ERIC...I'M GETTING MORE PISSED OFF THE MORE I WATCH THIS STUFF BACK...
Hey City Attorney-elect, this stuff happens on a day-to-day basis, but now that Zuma Dogg has been BANNED and will lose his First Amendment rights on Tuesday and Wednesday, it will become a legal matter, through your office. I hope City Council approves money for your office so you can hire some people because as you can see, there are a lot of lawsuits out there, including the class action lawsuit a few Medical Marijuana dispensaries may already be talking about.
Posts
