1 Vernice Hankins
From: stayfree7 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Douglas Sloan Cc: David White; Denise Anderson-Warren; Nikima Newsome Subject: ---> item 5-K: OPEN LETTER to City Council re censorship of public comments
EXTERNAL
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2023/09/25/opinion/open-letter-to-council-alleges-city-intends-to-censor-publiccomments/7809.html Open Letter to Council Alleges City Intends to Censor Public Comments
Update to Civility Policy unconstitutional, writes resident To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
facebo ok
Share
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
twitter
Tweet
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
pinterest
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
0 Comments
September 25, 2023
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Mayor Gleam Davis (left), City Attorney Douglas Sloan (right).
Dear Mayor Davis, Councilmembers and City Attorney Sloan, The purpose of this Open letter is to express grave concerns regarding the constitutionality of item 5-K agendized for the upcoming September 26, 2023 City Council meeting.
The name of the item is "Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Civility at Public Meetings Policy set forth in Resolution No. 10642 (CCS)." The item seeks the addition Item 5.K
09/26/23
1 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
2 of the City's Statement Against Hate to the existing civility policy. The Statement was originally adopted in July 2022, and was recently added to the City's Code of Ethics.
It is my belief that this item seeks to legitimize censorship at public meetings under the guise of a civility policy.
The City's Statement Against Hate reads in part:
"Equity and inclusion remain at the core of Santa Monica's values, and the City will not allow abusive or threatening hate speech, intolerance, or dehumanization to prevail over basic civil respect and human decency. (...) Be it Further Resolved, that the City Council, all City Boards and Commissions, and City staff shall promote the use of and adherence to these guidelines for behavior at all public meetings within the City [emphasis added]." In contrast, the American Civil Liberties Union's website reads in part:
"Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. Where racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech - not less - is the answer most consistent with our constitutional values."
Additionally, "Freedom of Expression – ACLU Position Paper" offers a powerful quote:
As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."
It is in the public interest to ensure that the approval of item 5-K by the Council will not result in a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the California Constitution, the Brown Act, or any other applicable law. Therefore I request that prior to the Council's vote on the item, the City Attorney respond at the 9/26/23 Council meeting to the concerns raised by this letter.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protection to and opportunity for free speech in public forums. The public meeting of a board or council is considered a "limited public forum," which means the government can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech.
To my knowledge, ample case law exists pertaining to civility policies at public meetings.
Courts have concluded such policies must be viewpoint neutral, may not be unconstitutionally vague, ambiguous or overbroad, and may not create a chilling effect on the public.
Item 5.K
09/26/23
2 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
3 Here the Council seeks the inclusion of the City's Statement Against Hate in the civility policy for public meetings. The Statement deplores "hate speech." As you must know, no legal definition of "hate speech" exists. It is unclear what kind of language and/or viewpoints the Council is seeking to discourage. What might be considered "hate speech" can vary from speaker to speaker and listener to listener. Such ambiguity alone creates a chilling effect on the speakers.
Sadly, the intent to create a chilling effect (which is a form of censorship) was actually articulated by one of the sponsors of the City's Statement Against Hate, thenCouncilmember, now Mayor, Gleam Davis in July 2022.
Said Ms. Davis:
"My hope is that by adopting this, many people will think twice before some of the hateful things that have been said, posted, you know, on social media, and, you know... I don't know... No one is trying to curtail speech, and no one is trying to reduce First Amendment rights, but I do think... I would hope that in a community like Santa Monica, we are... people would think twice before posting things that are... I don't know any other word for it but, just horrific, the things I have seen. So this is just a reminder to people that good policy is made when we have civil discussions [emphasis added]."
Such clearly articulated intent to create a chilling effect cannot be mistaken to understand the addition of the Statement Against Hate to the civility policy as merely "aspirational government speech."
It is shocking that the intent to curtail free speech was publicly communicated from the dais by then-Councilmember, now Mayor Davis, who is an attorney and often claims to be a champion of the First Amendment.
Please note that local governments and their officials, employees, places and means of communication are subject to First Amendment principles, and risk-wise, are subject to civil rights liability, including the potential for individual liability per 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I urge Mayor Davis and the Council to do their due diligence to ensure the constitutionality and otherwise legality of item 5-K, and to appraise the public of their findings at the Council meeting on Tuesday September 26, 2023 prior to voting on the item.
Censorship has no place in Santa Monica.
Regards,
Item 5.K
09/26/23
3 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
4 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Olga Zurawska
Santa Monica resident
member of The First Amendment Coalition
----------------------------
Item 5.K
09/26/23
4 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elaine Golden-Gealer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Elaine Golden-Gealer
Subject: OPPOSE ITEM 5-K If you care about Free Speech & the First Amendment - Vote NO on Item 5-K tomorrow night
Importance: High
EXTERNAL
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2023/09/25/opinion/open‐letter‐to‐council‐alleges‐ city‐intends‐to‐censor‐public‐comments/7809.html
Item 5.K
09/26/23
5 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 12:21 PM
To: [email protected]; councilmtgitems; David White; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 5K. City Council Meeting 9/26/2023
EXTERNAL
The actions of Gleam Davis to restrict speech is both hypocritical and disturbingly fascist in nature.
While I do not particularly enjoy the rants of some, I find the ACTIONS of Ms Davis for one, and others on the Council to be of a far more egregious and damaging nature. They talk over residents, they do not listen, they turn their backs and very rarely respond. It is clear that Ms Davis only listens to those who tow her party line..as do Zwick and Torosis. There is no respect for residents. They do not listen. They do as they please.
Perhaps this long time abuse by Councils, past and present has something to do with the spicy rhetoric they now seek to restrict in an unconstitutional power play.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER Ms Davis..yours have sold our town out. To me, that is far more vulgar and horrific. Get down with your bad self.
Danielle Charney
Resident Since 1982
So tired of it all.
Item 5.K
09/26/23
6 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 5-k Invites Endless Disruptions by Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem, Board Chair, aka Big Brother Arbitrators & holds them Personally Liable for First Amendment Violations
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council and City Attorney,
The points made in, "Open Letter to Council Alleges City Intends to Censor Public Comments" published by the SM Observer points out that your resolution is an attempt to chill the public's First Amendment Right to free speech. (https://www.smobserved.com/story/2023/09/25/opinion/open-letter-to-council-alleges-city-intendsto-censor-public-comments/7809.html)
This council resolution (Resolution No. 10642) fails to define "hate speech", the very thing you are attempting to curtail at city council, board and commission meetings.
Where are the definitions for:
"hate speech"?
"abusive hate speech"?
"threatening hate speech"?
Who decides what it IS "hate speech", "abusive hate speech", "threatening hate speech" and what ARE NOT these things?
How is the public, whose languages, cultures, and various views points and expressions expected to feel included and participate when you present a resolution that is so completely sketchy? How does your definitions apply in conjunction with:
"intolerance" ?
"dehumanization"?
The fact is that these are subjective terms intended to be used to label people based on who is saying what about whom and who is hearing it.
This single example of the inconvenient truth of your resolution bears all the hallmarks of chilling speech to satisfy your means.
CASE:
Supporters of candidate A over candidate B sit through a public council meeting and are forced to endure "intolerant/abusive hate speech" interjected into the comments by speakers who support candidate B. Because the arbitrator(s) of "Hate Speech" happen to those of you sitting on the dias failed to prevent such speech, likely because the position(s) spoken aligned with your own, then you are liable for violating your policy, correct? In other words, the arbitrators of "hate speech" could be only what Big Brother says it is, correct? Item 5.K
09/26/23
7 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
2 Countless opportunities exist with the passage of this resolution to CREATE more disruption as the arbitrators, namely the mayor or mayor pro‐tem and commission chairs would be required to act to censure all speech to compensate for this word salad of a resolution, severely lacking comprehension by the people you knowingly expect to apply it to.
It is my belief that as lawyers, Mayor Davis and Councilwoman Torosis are fully aware of the resolution's attempt to chill free speech.
It's odd that they along with the originator, former Mayor Himmelrich, have together managed to exclude dissenters, women’s rights defenders, journalists, etc., from the verbage.
Finally, should the resolution pass and an individual's First Amendment Rights be violated, as they most certainly will be violated, the person or persons having violated an individual's first amendment rights will be held personally liable per 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Which councilperson is willing to take the risk of being sued for everything they have? Which member of a board of commission is willing to take this same risk? In addition to chilling free speech, this resolution appears to be an AGGRESSIVE attempt to dissuade members of the public from serving our city.
Shame on you!
#morespeechnotless
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING AND RESTATING THE CIVILITY AT PUBLIC MEETINGS POLICY SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 10642 (CCS) WHEREAS, Council adopted Resolution 10642 (CCS) Endorsing Standards of Behavior that Promote Civility at All Public Meetings (the Civility Policy) on December 13, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Civility Policy sets forth guidelines to encourage and facilitate the democratic process, individual rights of expression, robust debate, and tolerance for disparate views; and
WHEREAS, the Civility Policy applies to all persons attending public meetings in Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2022, as a Council Discussion Item, the Council gave direction to adopt and promote a statement against hate, and to add it to the City’s Code of Ethics and Code of Civility for public meetings; and WHEREAS, the Council now wishes to amend and restate the Civility Policy in Resolution No. 10642 (CCS) to include the City’s Statement Against Hate, as adopted by Council at its July 26, 2022 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Civility Policy set forth in Resolution No. 10642 (CCS) is hereby amended and restated to read:
In order to safeguard participatory democracy in Santa Monica, all persons attending public meetings in Santa Monica shall strive to:
Item 5.K
09/26/23
8 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
3 1. Treat everyone courteously;
2. Listen to others respectfully;
3. Exercise self‐control;
4. Give open‐minded consideration to all viewpoints;
5. Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate;
6. Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions.
Statement Against Hate: Hate has no place in Santa Monica. Across the nation and here in Santa Monica, we have witnessed an increase in antisemitic, transphobic, homophobic, racist and discriminatory hate speech targeted at both individuals and groups. Equity and inclusion remain at the core of Santa Monica’s values, and the City will not allow abusive or threatening hate speech, intolerance, or dehumanization to prevail over basic civil respect and human decency. We will continue to celebrate, include, and uplift the diverse communities who live, work, and play in Santa Monica.
Be it Further Resolved, that the City Council, all City Boards and Commissions, and City staff shall promote the use of and adherence to these guidelines for behavior at all public meetings within the City.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ‐ Albert Einstein Item 5.K
09/26/23
9 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: GABRIEL NAVARRO <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: VOTE NO ON 5-K
EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone 11 Pro
Item 5.K
09/26/23
10 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: VOTE NO ON 5K
EXTERNAL
Please VOTE NO on 5K!! I object to the removal of the First Amendment for speakers! We live here, pay taxes, have businesses so we have the right to speak up for ourselves and our city! Item 5.K
09/26/23
11 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Sandy Laderas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Vote no on 5-K
EXTERNAL
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 5.K
09/26/23
12 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Horace Hertz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NO ON 5K
EXTERNAL
DO NOT SUPPRESS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The materials in this message are private and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, Protected Health Information within the meaning of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and/or Medical Information within the meaning of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, forwarding, printing, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may be unlawful.
If you have received this message by error, or have reason to believe that you are not authorized to receive it, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or destruction of these documents and delete this message.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here.
Item 5.K
09/26/23
13 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
5 Vernice Hankins
From: stephen bourcier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Vote No on 5-k
EXTERNAL
Freedom of speech is a protected right. I urge you to vote no on 5‐k.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 5.K
09/26/23
14 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Janet Heinle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: VOTE NO
EXTERNAL
VOTE NO ON 5-K
Janet Heinle
1047 Lincoln 90403
Item 5.K
09/26/23
15 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Joyce Urode <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: vote no on 5 k
EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Item 5.K
09/26/23
16 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on 5K
EXTERNAL
Please give the public a voice. Do not silence us. Our 1st amendment rights are based in our governments consƟtuƟon.
We live in this city and should be allowed to be part of the decisions that affect us.
Respecƞully
Gail Gordon
Sent from my iPhone
Item 5.K
09/26/23
17 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Debra Rocco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: VOTE NO ON 5-K
EXTERNAL
Sent from Debra’s ᏟᏠᏡᏢᏣᏤᏥ
Item 5.K
09/26/23
18 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Catherine Rist <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: VOTE NO ON 5-K
EXTERNAL
Do the right thing.
Item 5.K
09/26/23
19 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
2 Vernice Hankins
From: KARI NORDAAS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Vote NO on 5K
EXTERNAL
Kari Nordaas
2130 Oak st
SM 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 5.K
09/26/23
20 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Deborah Dinsmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Plz vote NO on 5-k
EXTERNAL
Deborah Dinsmore
Santa Monica, CA
Item 5.K
09/26/23
21 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jessica Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Vote No on 5K
EXTERNAL
I am thoroughly against making any changes that would limit free speech during public comment. It is much more dangerous to limit free speech and to listen to speech that can be interpreted as hateful.
Item 5.K
09/26/23
22 of 22 Item 5.K
09/26/23