I didn't really expect many to rally around my opposition to the City Council's recent decision to limit the use use of laptops in the council chambers, but I'm happy to have the editorial page of the Daily News on my side.
There's a reason for defenders of the First Amendment to be concerned about this. Laptops are often used by bloggers, who instantly upload their opinions on council matters to their blogs. By putting a ban in place, the council has effectively squashed a forum that some use to express their viewpoints.
The editorial corrects a mistake I made in an earlier post. Councillors aren't the only ones permitted to use laptops. Audience members also can, but only to review electronic documents related to council business. This adds a whole new level of silly to the rule, making it largely unenforceable unless councillors want to walk the pews to ensure the constituents aren't using a down period to check out their Facebook page.
What the new rule 22 really constitutes is a ban on typing/notetaking on laptops. Again, I'm not sure why this activity needs to be singled out. The council could easily just ask people to be considerate about their overall noise instead of creating a rule open to legal challenge.
BTW, Ari Herzog, councillor-at-large candidate, raises an interesting point about whether or not the council's ban on "electronic communication devices" violates the state's open meeting law if they're used as recording devices. It's definitely worth a read.
14 comments:
Yeah but Tom, it says in the editorial that news reporters are exempted, does it not? That was not my impression, since Tom Jones turned to me and said, "Sorry, Gillian" after he asked if reporters would be allowed to use laptops and the answer was "no."
Tom,
I think the rule is silly - but I don't see it as a first amendment issue considering they can gavel you to silence and remove you if you don't comply. Public speech is already limited to the public comment period no ?
Uh, guys? Go to the store, and look in the stationery aisle for something called a pen. It's used on something called paper. That's there too.
The council's rule may be silly, but a violation of the 1st amendment? Are they spouting wisdom so fast that you must take down everything they say?
Hi Gillian,
I missed that. But Ari's correct, the editorial is wrong, at least according to what was said at the meeting. Tom Jones apologize to you because he said specifically that media would not be exempt.
The Daily News may have done some separate reporting that revealed a different answer.
However, you can't exempt reporters from rules like that. It's ridiculous to say one person can type and another cannot simply because the first writes for a newspaper. The first amendment offers no such protection.
Bubba and anonymous, I said nothing about freedom of speech or the first amendment. I spoke to the open meeting law which (as you can see in Ari's post) explictly states that anyone can record a meeting with a sonic reproduction device.
That once meant a tape recorder or video camera. Today, that's an iPhone.
The council will argue, well, we already tape our meetings, and the meetings are open to the public. And they're correct, but they don't have the right to restrict others from recording the meeting. At least I don't think they do.
Oh, I assumed your inclusion of the DN editorial was an endorsement of its First Amendment position - my mistake. I guess my mom is going to have to come out of retirement to teach you folks how to take short-hand.
"...That once meant a tape recorder or video camera. Today, that's an iPhone."
By the reasoning, the 2nd amendment guarantees me the right to own a machine gun, RPG, tank, etc.
Anonymous,
I have never used my laptop to takes notes at any meeting, nor do I intend to. For one, I don't have that much lap while sitting on those benches!
I was at a School Committee meeting recently where someone was taking notes on a laptop and I found the tap-tapping to be quite distracting.
As I said on my blog, why not just make the rule that you can't disturb the proceedings in any manner, period. That way, a silent typist/videographer would be allowed but a screaming child or a noisy typist would not. It might also cut down on all the side conversations.
Or what Bubba said.
And oops, yeah, it's Tom Jones who was on the Rules Committee and Donna who asked about reporters.
Yes, Bubba, you're right. An iPhone can be used to take down a jetliner.
Don't strain your back reaching too far to make a point.
For the record, I don't even attend council meetings. But if we wait to speak against infringements on rights until they affect us than we've waited too long.
Tom,
Not stretching at all. I don't think the open meeting law allows one to bring in every sonic recording device ever to be conceived, just as the 2nd amendment doesn't allow me to bear every "arm" man can invent.
IPhones and laptops also allow one to broadcast the meeting.
I think we need some lasagna and maybe a little wine.
Sounds lovely Bubba, but I'm a married man.
I was also at a school committee meeting and the typing from a laptop was distracting. It was from one of the board members!
What if I have a laptop with me, but I'm not typing, I'm merely following the agenda that I have on there? I have a 2-ft. pile of (paper) City Council agendas in my house. What a waste! They should have a rule about that.
If someone is texting quietly in their seat, I think the CC would be hard-pressed to order them to leave.
Bubba, maybe you should try to enter with your Plover Pony. I don't see any rule in there about ponies.
Tom,
I believe you were the one who suggested that arguing is more civilized while dining on lasagna.
Gillian,
Funny you should mention the plover pony. My family fled the old country after the family patriarch rode his horse into court and beat the magistrate to death.
I did Bubba. I was just joking on my last comment.
Tom,
In the future, please leave the comedy to us Irish...
thanks...
Post a Comment