FYI: Of the entire #LAPD "Rules of Decorum," draft [see V. Decorum], the only language/verbiage I believe is in violation of the Federal ruling is featured, below.
V. Decorum
All persons attending such meetings are expected to behave in a civil manner at all times. All persons should be treated with courtesy and respect. [ZD: See Judge's ruling on #civility, below.]
A. Persons Addressing the Board
Each person who addresses the Board shall refrain from making personal or profane remarks regarding or directed toward any member of the Board. Speakers shall direct all remarks to the Board as a whole. [ZD: See Judge's ruling on #personal/#profane remarks and addressing board members, #directly.]
[FYI Re: Rules for public, while sitting in the audience (not printed here): Zuma Dogg says: Audience members need to STFU, and have NO free speech rights, from the seats. ONLY WHILE AT THE PODIUM, during your allotted time. The meeting isn't a recreational horror movie; where you shout back at the screen. The REAL ISSUE is how the seemingly innocuous verbiage of V. DECORUM [A]=BLUEPRINT FOR REAL CENSORSHIP; when and where it counts=When you got the mic/the floor, are on the record; and the People are listening.]
JUDGE'S RULING:
UNITED STATES/CALIFORNIA/FEDERAL/COURT: FEDERAL RULING (AUGUST 08, 2013) - Zuma Dogg vs Los Angeles City Council: "It is unconstitutional to restrict speakers from making personal attacks in City Council meetings; it chills speech critical of elected officials, which is speech at the heart of the First Amendment. In one of the largest cities in the world, it is to be expected that some inhabitants will sometimes use language that does not conform to conventions of civility and decorum, including offensive language and swear-words. As an elected official, a City Council member will be the subject of personal attacks in such language. It is asking much of City Council members, who have given themselves to public service, to tolerate profanities and personal attacks, but that is what is required by the First Amendment. While the City Council has a right to keep its meetings on topic and moving forward, it cannot sacrifice political speech to a formula of civility. Dogg “may be a gadfly to those with views contrary to [their] own, but First Amendment jurisprudence is clear that the way to oppose offensive speech is by more speech, not censorship, enforced silence or eviction from legitimately occupied public space.” Gathright v. City of 18 Portland, Or., 439 F.3d 573, 578 (9th Cir. 2006). The city that silences a critic will injure itself as much as it injures the critic, for the gadfly’s task is to stir into life the massive beast of the city, to “rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long.” (#PLATO, Five Dialogues, Hackett, 23 2d Ed., Trans. G.M.A. Grube, 35 (Apology).) 24 The court GRANTS summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the as-applied challenge to the Rules of Decorum."
SO CLEARLY, this new ordinance L.A. City Attorney's Office handed to #LAPD Commission is CLEARLY in violation of the ruling they already LOST in Federal Court, with the SAME VERBIAGE (So, I guess I get to beat them, twice.)
Zuma Dogg
ZumaDogg.com
CONTACT: @ZumaDogg on twitter
Posts
