Correspondence - ACLU - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council Page 2 October 17, 2014 Nowhere is the fundamental right to free speech and expression more vital than when addressing public officials regarding issues of public concern. In fact, "[clitizens have an enormous first amendment interest in directing speech about public issues to those who govern their city." White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (1990) (emphasis added); see also Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) ( "[I]t is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. "). In recognition of these interests, the California legislature enacted California's Open Meetings Law ( "The Brown Act"). See CAL. GOV. CODE § §54950 et seq. The Brown Act states that legislative bodies in the State "exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business." Id. The purpose of a city council meeting is twofold. First, it provides a space for members of the public to comment, recognizing that residents have an "interest in directing speech about public issues to those who govern their city." White, 900 F.2d at 1425. Second, it promotes transparency in government while recognizing that the council has an interest in "accomplishing its business in a reasonably efficient manner." Id. That being said, any restrictions the government imposes on speech at open and public meetings must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 980 (9th Cir. 2010); Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 67 F.3d 266,270-71. A viewpoint neutral restriction must apply uniformly to all speech, meaning a speaker may not be prohibited or censored from speaking simply "because the moderator disagrees with the viewpoint [the speaker] is expressing," Perry Educ. Assn v. Perry Local Educators'Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 60 -61 (1983). It is clear from the City's officials' prior conduct that Santa Ana's City Council interprets and applies Section 2 -104 in a viewpoint discriminatory manner. During the City council meeting on September 2, 2014, Mayor Pulido recognized Santa Ana police officers for years of service in the city, praising their work and allowing for audience members to clap and show their support for the officers, but asked to have signs removed that members of the public seated in the audience were holding that had messages criticizing police officers. The Mayor said he found the messages on the signs "offensive" and "inappropriate" and Councilwoman Martinez also suggested that such signs were "disrespectful" and thereby not welcomed in the Council chambers. Then, on October 7, 2014 the City prevented countless individuals from expressing their views, opinions, and comments on various matters of public concern within the City's jurisdiction, including a proposed revision to the Rules of Decorum, when the Mayor cancelled the meeting without rescheduling it because someone in the audience was wearing a hat that the Mayor found to be "offensive." We understand that Mr. Bijan, a member of the public, went to the City Council meeting on October 7, 2014 to talk to the Council about the police abuse that he had experienced at the hands of Santa Ana police offices. We further understand that Mr. Bijan wore a hat that read "Fuck the Police" as an expression of his belief that Santa Ana police were ACLU AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ai SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CAO LL