SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The city of Southfield appears to have violated the constitutional rights of citizens who come to speak at city council meetings, according to a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit free speech watchdog group.
The issues revolve around the rules posted on the city’s website regarding public commentary at city council meetings.
What’s the city rule?
MORE NEWS: Trigger Warning: Michigan State Police Go All In on a Gun That Allegedly Fires Itself
The city rule states, “The Southfield City Council has established the following Rules of Procedure for all speakers:
- No speaker may make personal or impertinent attacks upon any officer, employee, or City Council
member or other Elected Official, that is unrelated to the manner in which the officer, employee, or
City Council member or other Elected Official, performs his or her duties. - No person shall use abusive or threatening language toward any individual when addressing the
City Council. - Any person who violates this section shall be directed by the presiding officer to be orderly and silent. If a
person addressing the Council refuses to become silent when so directed, such person may be deemed by
the presiding officer to have committed a ‘breach of the peace’ by disrupting and impeding the orderly
conduct of the public meeting of the City Council and may be ordered by the presiding officer to leave the
meeting. If the person refuses to leave as directed, the presiding officer may direct any law enforcement
officer who is present to escort the violator from the meeting.”
Constitutional violations.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) said there are likely constitutional issues with those rules.
“Cities generally can restrict public comments to those that are related to city business, but Southfield goes a step further, making the policy unconstitutional,” said Brennen VanderVeen, program counsel for public advocacy for FIRE. “By banning only unrelated ‘personal or impertinent attacks’ while allowing unrelated praise, the policy is viewpoint discriminatory, which is impermissible. A city can’t treat criticism, even harsh criticism, more harshly than it treats praise.”
VanderVeen continued: “Additionally, the restriction on ‘abusive or threatening language’ is unconstitutional. What qualifies as ‘abusive’ is unconstitutionally vague, giving too much discretion to the presiding officer to decide what speech is and is not allowed. And to the extent ‘abusive’ means something like ‘harsh criticism,’ it restricts constitutionally protected speech.”
Finally, “The restriction on ‘threatening’ language is better, but it could still be a problem. Cities can ban what are called ‘true threats,’ which are when the speaker communicates a serious expression of an intent to commit unlawful violence. If ‘threatening language’ is restricted to true threats, it’s fine, but when paired with ‘abusive,’ it sounds as though the city might mean something broader.”
FIRE sounds the alarm.
FIRE has alerted more than 20 Michigan communities about the likely unconstitutional rules they have in place. The group filed a lawsuit in 2022 against the city of Eastpointe after then-Mayor Monique Owens shouted down residents who criticized her during public comment.
MORE NEWS: Slotkin’s Conditions: No Budget Vote Without More Obamacare, Medicaid Cash
The city of Eastpointe agreed to concessions over the lawsuit in 2024. In the agreement, the city had to pay each of the four plaintiffs $17,910, pay attorneys’ fees of $83,000, pass a resolution apologizing to the plaintiffs and make Sept. 6 an annual “First Amendment Day” in Eastpointe.