Cleveland City Council overhauled its public comment rules Monday night as it faces a lawsuit brought by a resident whose microphone was cut off last year.
But attorneys for the plaintiff say the change doesn’t resolve the case.
The new rules bar “frivolous or repetitive” comments and require speakers to stick to the subjects they signed up to talk about. The rules also prohibit “language that is obscene or likely to produce imminent unlawful action.” Speakers are required to address all their remarks to the council president or whichever other member presides over the meeting.
Gone are the old rules’ prohibitions on electioneering, promoting products or services and wearing clothing with slogans. Public comment sessions remain limited to up to 10 speakers who have three minutes each to talk.
Under the new rules, attendees cannot interrupt, delay or disturb meetings. The list of banned conduct includes hand clapping, foot stomping, whistling, yelling or making other loud noises. Signs and banners remain prohibited, and attendees now will not be able to bring food or drinks into the chambers.
The council president is permitted to have “disorderly” attendees removed from the chambers. But the president must enforce the rules in a way that is “viewpoint neutral.”
Begun in 2021, City Council’s public comment sessions have become more boisterous over the last few months. Protesters have filled the council chambers to call for a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, at times chanting during the proceedings.
A large group of people protested from the back seats of the chamber last night, tweeted Cleveland Documenter Ayanna Banks. The group quietly listened to each speaker during the public comment portion of the meeting and cheered in between speakers. Council adjourned early.
More on the lawsuit
The First Amendment Center at Case Western Reserve University, which represents plaintiff Chris Martin, posted on social media that the new rules were an improvement on the old ones – but that they still contained “vague and problematic” language.
“We’re glad that Council removed many of the portions we challenged and that the new proposed policy now explicitly references viewpoint neutrality,” the post reads, “but this doesn’t resolve the litigation, and ultimately the real First Amendment test will be how Council applies it.”
Martin sued council last year after Griffin cut off his microphone during a public comment session. Martin had been reading a list of council members who had taken campaign donations from the Council Leadership Fund, a political action committee run by the council president.
Council agreed not to enforce the old rules this month while the lawsuit proceeded. However, attorneys for the city still defended those rules as constitutional in a court filing last week.
