For reference, a similar case of selective enforcement against an outspoken critic of the local government in Texas resulted in the critic receiving a settlement of $500k following an unjust arrest
replyhttps://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/10/15/i-feel-like-i-can...
it's an example of the government silencing people for speech
replyIt’s an example of someone being arrested for violating a law, in this case a law restricting how long you are allowed to present at a city council meeting.
replyThis could be a case of selective enforcement, a deliberate attempt to retaliate against the man for his previous speech, which would be illegal under federal law (see Gonzales v. Trevino).
It’s also possible that this is not a new thing and the municipality in question just regulates city business very strictly. This is bad in its own right, it grants too much power to the state which can be abused, but would not be a free speech question.
No, it's an example of someone being told to leave, not doing so, and then being arrested for trespassing.
replyFor speech. By the government.
replyFor being five seconds over? Not even minutes.
replyHe was asked due to his actions he took after he was told to stop. If he had just stopped talking after being told his time was up he would not have been asked to leave.
replyHonest question: which part of the First Amendment says you only get three minutes to speak?
replyThe 1st amendment has long been understood to protect the content of your speech, not the time, place, or manner of your speech. It guarantees the communicative act, the viewpoint or message conveyed; it does not give you an unlimited right to convey it however you want. The government has been consistently allowed by the Supreme Court to establish noise ordinances preventing people from yelling into a bullhorn at night or laws against marching a protest down a busy city street without first obtaining a parade permit. As long as there is no viewpoint discrimination in how those laws are enforced, it is perfectly legal to restrict public comment periods to 3 minutes.
replyWhy not three seconds or three milliseconds?
replyThere's unreasonable discrimination because the public comment period is only used for speech which disagrees with the government.
Five seconds is nothing. It's shorter than it took to type this message.
replyI don't get your point. Going over by 5 seconds didn't get him in trouble. The court can tolerate such minor mistakes as long as people are willing to behave themselves.
reply