Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Santa Cruz Indymedia
Government & Elections
Health, Housing & Public Services
Police State & Prisons
Norse Incident Sounds Alarm
Civil Liberties Threatened by Council Action
From a purely civil libertarian point of view, the arrest and citation of Robert Norse during Tuesday evening's council meeting was both alarming and disconcerting. In an age when government at all levels seems interested in exerting more power over the affairs of ordinary citizens while simultaneously restricting access to the decision making process, the right to simply be heard is more important than ever. Regardless of the animus some feel toward Mr. Norse, let us not further chill the medium in our haste to quiet the messenger.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I dunno. This sounds like Norse baiting for another lawsuit. Tough to be supportive of this.
For news media in California (and most states).
As a news reporter/photographer for 30-some years, I have a nodding acquaintance with California media law. Summed up, the news media is subject to the same restraints as the general public. If the public is not permitted, for example, to place recording equipment in a particular location to record a meeting, the media is similarly constrained unless granted specific permission to do otherwise. Another example: the news media can not just enter private property in pursuit of a story. There was a case some years ago where media accompanying law enforcement entered someone's home uninvited. The property owner sued the media outlet and the police agency for trespass and won.
As a news reporter/photographer for 30-some years, I have a nodding acquaintance with California media law. Summed up, the news media is subject to the same restraints as the general public. If the public is not permitted, for example, to place recording equipment in a particular location to record a meeting, the media is similarly constrained unless granted specific permission to do otherwise. Another example: the news media can not just enter private property in pursuit of a story. There was a case some years ago where media accompanying law enforcement entered someone's home uninvited. The property owner sued the media outlet and the police agency for trespass and won.
"I guess we'll meet in court".
I'd say that pretty much sums up Robert's objective here. There isn't any case, as the City clearly believes. No doubt they'll go to the wall on this. Which Robert knows, and presumably will delight in.
It's astonishing that one person can hijack the process so easily for so many decades. It points to a flawed system. Perhaps there isn't a better one that will guarantee us our freedoms, but this sort of thing sure makes one wonder if there isn't a better way.
I'd say that pretty much sums up Robert's objective here. There isn't any case, as the City clearly believes. No doubt they'll go to the wall on this. Which Robert knows, and presumably will delight in.
It's astonishing that one person can hijack the process so easily for so many decades. It points to a flawed system. Perhaps there isn't a better one that will guarantee us our freedoms, but this sort of thing sure makes one wonder if there isn't a better way.
...there is, "This Again." In his book "The Operators" the late Michael Hastings related conversations he had with members of General David Petralius' staff. They told him a growing number of the officer corps believe the military should be running the country "in time of war" which we are in and have been since 2001 (the "endless war on terror). Congress and the rest of the civilian leadership would be figureheads. Having read this, I wonder if this is driving the recent proposal from Obama to downsize the military and to officially end the "state of war."
NO FAN OF COURT
Actually I have zero interest in court. The issue is resisting abusive authority and simply retaining traditional rights--whether they be on the sidewalk, in the community, or in City Council. They are disappearing--along with privacy--nationally and locally.
It is Robinson and others in power who are deepening the repression and expecting us to respond like obedient serfs.
HISTORY OF THE "UNATTENDED AUDIO" RULE
The "unattended audio" law was originally created in 2001 by former Mayor Fitzmaurice in a series of "decorum rules" in retaliation for peaceful protest against the City's Sleeping Ban in the winter of 2000-2001. It and other "decorum rules" were used in the City's expensive justification of its repression of silent protest in the mock-Nazi salute case. See the first story "You Can't Fight City Hall? Watch Me." at http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2002-April/005859.html .
Equally true is that this "rule" was concocted specifically to address what I do and is indeed politically motivated. Fitzmaurce was tired of the political criticism he was getting from me and others in the homeless community for ignoring the winter homeless death rate (which continues at an obscene level). Me particulary cause I was one of the few recording in the manner that I do. So he unilaterally instituted a whole series of First Amendment-free "rules" that I and others have either challenged or ignored over the years.
NO HISTORY OF DISRUPTION
I have never acted to disrupt Santa Cruz City Council nor have I been convicted of disruption. I've simply at points done what I could to hold the line against the City Council's persistent and ongoing concoction of rules and practices that punish peaceful but persistent activists--and the community generally as public comment (along with public space) shrinks.
NO SPECIAL MEDIA PRIVILEGE CLAIMED
I do not claim the media has more right to record than the ordinary citizen (although reporters in some cases have protection that others do not--around sources, for example). However the significance of shutting down an alternate media person and designing rules to make recording more difficult is important to acknowledge.
Few reporters or advocates do what I do in terms of ad hoc recording at City Council, but it is a right that everyone has--and it should be respected. That's the point.
WHY MAKE THIS AN ISSUE?
It's also interesting to consider that if what I've done is so rare--why make a police issue out of it? What's the point--if not to assert a kind of stark authority? That incidentally entangles a persistent critic in court proceedings?
A RULE VIOLATION IS NOT A DISRUPTION
The 9th Circuit Court has ruled that violating an order of the mayor or a rule is not a disruption unless it actually disrupts. Which means the Mayor can't stop her own meeting in response to non-disruptive behavior in the audience and then claim that person was being "disruptive". A mayor cannot issue an order and if it's not obeyed, have the culprit expelled or arrested.
However, unless the community acts to give life to its power to attend public meeting unmolested, however, the court's decision is meaningless and mayors at will can order people to do what they choose, create what rules they wish--all under the mystique of their authority with the force of an armed officer behind them.
I believe the community suffers if this is allowed to happen.
THE COURT'S RULING
Judge Alex Kozinski wrote
"We also decline the City's invitation to rewrite the rule announced in Norwalk. 900 F.2d at 1424-26. There, we held that a city's “Rules of Decorum” are not facially over-broad where they only permit a presiding officer to eject an attendee for actually disturbing or impeding a meeting. Id.
In this case, the City argues that cities may define “disturbance” in any way they choose. Specifically, the City argues that it has defined any violation of its decorum rules to be a “disturbance.” Therefore, it reasons, Norwalk permits the City to eject anyone for violation of the City's rules-rules that were only held to be facially valid to the extent that they require a person actually to disturb a meeting before being ejected. We must respectfully reject the City's attempt to engage us in doublespeak. Actual disruption means actual disruption. It does not mean constructive disruption, technical disruption, virtual disruption, nunc pro tunc disruption, or imaginary disruption. The City cannot define disruption so as to include non-disruption to invoke the aid of Norwalk.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1548256.html#sthash.JnwuMOmW.dpuf"
Actually I have zero interest in court. The issue is resisting abusive authority and simply retaining traditional rights--whether they be on the sidewalk, in the community, or in City Council. They are disappearing--along with privacy--nationally and locally.
It is Robinson and others in power who are deepening the repression and expecting us to respond like obedient serfs.
HISTORY OF THE "UNATTENDED AUDIO" RULE
The "unattended audio" law was originally created in 2001 by former Mayor Fitzmaurice in a series of "decorum rules" in retaliation for peaceful protest against the City's Sleeping Ban in the winter of 2000-2001. It and other "decorum rules" were used in the City's expensive justification of its repression of silent protest in the mock-Nazi salute case. See the first story "You Can't Fight City Hall? Watch Me." at http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2002-April/005859.html .
Equally true is that this "rule" was concocted specifically to address what I do and is indeed politically motivated. Fitzmaurce was tired of the political criticism he was getting from me and others in the homeless community for ignoring the winter homeless death rate (which continues at an obscene level). Me particulary cause I was one of the few recording in the manner that I do. So he unilaterally instituted a whole series of First Amendment-free "rules" that I and others have either challenged or ignored over the years.
NO HISTORY OF DISRUPTION
I have never acted to disrupt Santa Cruz City Council nor have I been convicted of disruption. I've simply at points done what I could to hold the line against the City Council's persistent and ongoing concoction of rules and practices that punish peaceful but persistent activists--and the community generally as public comment (along with public space) shrinks.
NO SPECIAL MEDIA PRIVILEGE CLAIMED
I do not claim the media has more right to record than the ordinary citizen (although reporters in some cases have protection that others do not--around sources, for example). However the significance of shutting down an alternate media person and designing rules to make recording more difficult is important to acknowledge.
Few reporters or advocates do what I do in terms of ad hoc recording at City Council, but it is a right that everyone has--and it should be respected. That's the point.
WHY MAKE THIS AN ISSUE?
It's also interesting to consider that if what I've done is so rare--why make a police issue out of it? What's the point--if not to assert a kind of stark authority? That incidentally entangles a persistent critic in court proceedings?
A RULE VIOLATION IS NOT A DISRUPTION
The 9th Circuit Court has ruled that violating an order of the mayor or a rule is not a disruption unless it actually disrupts. Which means the Mayor can't stop her own meeting in response to non-disruptive behavior in the audience and then claim that person was being "disruptive". A mayor cannot issue an order and if it's not obeyed, have the culprit expelled or arrested.
However, unless the community acts to give life to its power to attend public meeting unmolested, however, the court's decision is meaningless and mayors at will can order people to do what they choose, create what rules they wish--all under the mystique of their authority with the force of an armed officer behind them.
I believe the community suffers if this is allowed to happen.
THE COURT'S RULING
Judge Alex Kozinski wrote
"We also decline the City's invitation to rewrite the rule announced in Norwalk. 900 F.2d at 1424-26. There, we held that a city's “Rules of Decorum” are not facially over-broad where they only permit a presiding officer to eject an attendee for actually disturbing or impeding a meeting. Id.
In this case, the City argues that cities may define “disturbance” in any way they choose. Specifically, the City argues that it has defined any violation of its decorum rules to be a “disturbance.” Therefore, it reasons, Norwalk permits the City to eject anyone for violation of the City's rules-rules that were only held to be facially valid to the extent that they require a person actually to disturb a meeting before being ejected. We must respectfully reject the City's attempt to engage us in doublespeak. Actual disruption means actual disruption. It does not mean constructive disruption, technical disruption, virtual disruption, nunc pro tunc disruption, or imaginary disruption. The City cannot define disruption so as to include non-disruption to invoke the aid of Norwalk.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1548256.html#sthash.JnwuMOmW.dpuf"
Are recorders allowed unattended at the podium? The meetings are televised on community TV, why does Robert need to record everyone who speaks? What if I want to address the council and not worry about my words being edited to fit Robert's agenda on his show? All I see here is another attempt for Robert to sue the city and it's getting old.
I'd encourage those concerned to contact Mayor Robinson at lrobinson [at] cityofsantacruz.com and citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com . A letter to the Sentinel might get published in their hard-copy and on-line editions. (Getting entangled with the troll network on Disquis is more questionable--though I do it at times.)
If you bother to go to City Council meetings, bringing audio and video devices is also a good idea. Other media like facebook and other blogs are probably even more important and go further. Expecting a healthy response from a repressive Council and a repression-friendly monopoly newspaper is unlikely, though at times the public does get a glimpse.
Equally important is bringing audio and video to public interactions with the Mayor (and Councilmembers) outside City Council where they don't have the threat of eviction and arrest to dumb-down the audience. Unfortunately, this can be hard to find, but posting the Mayor's schedule or likely schedule on indybay is another step in making her and her Council vulnerable to the public voice outside their managed echo chambers. She has so far declined to let us know (as Don Lane did when he was Mayor to his credit) what the proposed schedule is for the next few weeks. If anyone knows, let us know.
Also, Robinson has so far--unlike most prior mayors--declined to have a radio interview with me or reveal lobbyist contacts, Contacting her to urge her to do these things to assure transparency, accessibility, and credibility is another very good thing as well as pressing local and state civil liberties "watchdogs". Whether it be our timid local ACLU, the more militant regional chapters, organizations concerned with open government, or other groups.
Finally if any sympathetic attorneys or legal workers want to get involved, first direct your attentions to issues like the Sleeping Ban, seizure of homeless property, and the raft of unconstitutional ordinances used to empower thugs like CSO Barnett downtown, but then suggest they might also look into City Council repression.
The more public pressure on all of these issues, the better.
If you bother to go to City Council meetings, bringing audio and video devices is also a good idea. Other media like facebook and other blogs are probably even more important and go further. Expecting a healthy response from a repressive Council and a repression-friendly monopoly newspaper is unlikely, though at times the public does get a glimpse.
Equally important is bringing audio and video to public interactions with the Mayor (and Councilmembers) outside City Council where they don't have the threat of eviction and arrest to dumb-down the audience. Unfortunately, this can be hard to find, but posting the Mayor's schedule or likely schedule on indybay is another step in making her and her Council vulnerable to the public voice outside their managed echo chambers. She has so far declined to let us know (as Don Lane did when he was Mayor to his credit) what the proposed schedule is for the next few weeks. If anyone knows, let us know.
Also, Robinson has so far--unlike most prior mayors--declined to have a radio interview with me or reveal lobbyist contacts, Contacting her to urge her to do these things to assure transparency, accessibility, and credibility is another very good thing as well as pressing local and state civil liberties "watchdogs". Whether it be our timid local ACLU, the more militant regional chapters, organizations concerned with open government, or other groups.
Finally if any sympathetic attorneys or legal workers want to get involved, first direct your attentions to issues like the Sleeping Ban, seizure of homeless property, and the raft of unconstitutional ordinances used to empower thugs like CSO Barnett downtown, but then suggest they might also look into City Council repression.
The more public pressure on all of these issues, the better.
Robert's become expert at disrupting things... Including the safety of the homeless community he claims to represent.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$155.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network