@@juanmangasmochas1533 Seriously. Ended up here off a short from another meeting where this same guy was cursing at the council, but nobody can explain what the issue is, just that this guy has the right to yell, curse and insult.
@@kilroy2517 yeah, what’s happened is that this guy first lodged a complaint about the police chief purchasing a suit for something like $1,500.00 on the tax payers dime. To cover the expense of the suit, they entered “class A” uniform on the city expense report. After they did that and he questioned the expense, city inspectors started showing up at his business and have done everything they can to close him down. He’s pissed. He’s a tax paying resident and businessman in that town. Now he’s voicing his frustration at a city council meeting. He has every first amendment right to do it. The city council is trying to make it a crime for him to speak freely during his 3 minutes in the public comment part of the meeting. Is he rude, sure. Being rude though is not a crime. Cursing is protected by the 1A. I don’t care for the cursing but I’m gonna stand with the dude and support his 1A right.
@@juanmangasmochas1533 While cursing is our 1A right, government meetings have the right to set a standard of decorum, something that's been established in numerous court cases. It cracks me up that so many people are crying about the decline of our society while at the same time defending the right to curse in public. But I digress... I did see more about this and it's about a $1247 suit purchase. I understand and agree with his anger over that corruption, but it doesn't change my opinion - getting up there, cursing and throwing personal insults, no matter how well deserved, does nothing to change the situation, it's just throwing a temper tantrum. Ben Franklin said "Never confuse motion with action." This is all motion, no action.
@@kilroy2517 while I mostly agree with you, it doesn’t change the fact that our 1A right allows cursing in public and at public officials I. The commission of their duties as established by the Supreme Court.
For those who dont know let me explain. The mayor and the police chief were using the city budget that goes towards thing like city maintenance emergency funds for natural disasters for personal use. The chief bought a 1247$ custom fitted suit using the city budget and when the man seen in the video who was cursing was just about to provide the facts that they were stealing from there city and there city people that when the mayor knowing he would be caught forced him out of the building and the cops on body cam arrested him for free speech under there corrupt police chief orders. That chief is no longer on the board as a police chief and he filed for another city chief position and they turned him down too.
@@Ozzie_YT it on youtube bro just google his town name. And it on chrome as well the chief was fired and he applied for another chief job and they refuses
@@alexanderblack1899 That's exactly what I did and this was the only video I found. So your guy had evidence of corruption by a city official, and I presume was turned away by the police chief, so he thought the way to pursue this was to do this instead of going to the state police? State Police love busting politicians.
@@alexanderblack1899”welp time to move on to the next position of power” I hate that we have parasitic worms like this in our government and theres so manyy
Those people were standing against corrupt officials who have never done anything but attempt to make their own lives better while sitting in a public servants seat. This news channel is beyond disgusting if they are going to label that as disruption. KRIS 6 another news that I will never listen or pay any attention to.
These men have an airtight case of Constitutional Rights violations against these council members and the officers that arrested them - seems like a defamation case against this news organization might be in order too...
The mayors rules do not supersede the constitution, thats the part the mayor and the jackass they interviewed after the story fail to understand. Just because the mayor doesnt like someone's speech or tone or word choice doesnt mean they can just kick out or threaten to arrest someone. It's protected speech, plain and simple. If he cant handle being talked to in that manner than leave the position.
They are being sued at this time. They literally violated Grisham's rights on the spot and the officer may have lost qualified immunity! The mayor did violate their rights and thus, the taxpayer will need to foot the bill!
The title to the video shows bias in this news station. The citizen isn't disrupting when IT IS HIS TURN TO SPEAK. I hope you struggle with advertisements.
Had a press conference regarding this 7 figure lawsuit, and not one of these cowardice news channels or reporters showed up. They are slanted AF, and might as well register as an arm of the corruption being displayed
City council members only have the privilege of a peaceful meeting in the event that their administration of the town has not sufficiently angered the population to revoke that peace.
City council rules of "decorum" do not take precedence over the Constitution! 1st Amendment guarantees free speech and multiple lawsuits have determined that criticizing or cursing at public officials, even at a city council meeting, is allowed! Their rules are unconstitutional!
"Caught On Camera! Citizen's Constitutional Rights Blatantly Violated By Corrupt City Council Members" You should fix your title - these guys have an absolutely airtight case and your title seems pretty biased and defamatory.
You can't havd purity laws apply to laws of the land like (all women must wear a burka) for example. You can do that but it only apply if everyone goes to say the same church or mosque then you can have purity laws. A random Atheist can't just start making purity laws for town council in a diversity, divided town.
They love their rules when they get called out. The Supreme Court has ruled that people can use whatever non-threatening language towards public officials.
its CLEAR in the law that any citizen can use any language they want as long as they aren't being disruptive. they can even make threats. That what happens when you are a politician. If you are a GOOD politician then you wouldn't have to be worried about stuff like this because you know that person has no backing. if you are actually caught doing shady business while being a politician then you deserve every word coming to you.
Very poor reporting. How about including why this so called expert thinks the rules were violated. Do you just expect people to take his word for it? The city is going to be paying out huge sums of money to settle the lawsuits from this debacle.
That guy they asked is stupid its freedom of speach and the guy sued the council. Theres even a short that shows him at another meeting and he has them all served with lawsuits
Aransas Pass purposely violated their 1A rights to criticize their Gov, but retaliating w/ false charges just provided basis for another lawsuit that the tax payer must pay for in the end. More concerning is the obvious slant by the reporting in this story. Did the editor/author even try to do basic research to give alternative view points, allowing the reader/viewer to objectively make their own judgement? You know, the purpose of an independent press?
Are y'all going to report on them getting sued? Or do your actual journalistic duty and report the truth? Like the Supreme Court has ruled on this, and cursing can't be banned. I will help you. "The Supreme Court case that established that cursing or offensive language cannot be banned is Cohen v. California (1971). In this case, Paul Robert Cohen was convicted for wearing a jacket with the words "F*** the Draft" in a courthouse. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cohen, stating that the First Amendment protects the expression of offensive words and that the government cannot prohibit the public display of profanity simply because it is offensive. Justice John Marshall Harlan II, writing for the majority, emphasized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric" and that the government cannot make principled distinctions in this area of expression. This case set a significant precedent for the protection of free speech, even when it includes offensive language."
A lot of people in here quoting the constitution without actually seeming to know what the constitution allows. Freedom of speech does not mean you can hijack a city council meeting to yell insults at people, that's what twitter is for.
Where can i learn more? For being a news channel you really dont give any information. Whats your sources? Who invests in you. What where the names of the chief of police? The judge? The citizen? When is the court date
disrupts? what, he gave a lecture on law(actually hilarious those fools got played soo badly) now the tyrants who cant follow the law are sued. second video he comes back to serve papers lol
There used to be public decency laws. He can speak on most any topic if they dont violate those laws, but his language in an official meeting would violate most of those laws.
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Purity codes only work if everyone in this meeting is attending the same church on Sunday. Purity codes do not apply to a room full of degenerates.
no rule, code or law can be made that directly violated the bill of rights. if it puts any sort of limit on your ability to speech or express yourself through speech it is in direct violation. There are only few exceptions ie: dont scream fire in a movie theatre if there isnt one and such. Nothing to incite violence, and im sorry but profanity which is a form of verbal expression does not incite violence and if it did the person that was incited belongs in a mental hospital with padded rooms.
@halimaw8922 Welll when everyone in Texas would see the whole town in church on Sunday's, you could have a Puritans law of the land and ban blasphemy but the police chief and the Town council are a bunch of degenerates pretending they are church goers.
@@LuisRivera-jl9vx the guy you’re replying to literally is the second guy that spoke at the podium. They violated these men’s rights, watch their footage
A Civil Rights attorney... one that has a pretty good record of smoking the state. The Cohen case alone will grant both of these men a ton of taxpayers' money. Once again, a city council has wasted their citizens' money due to EGO. Congratulations.
The news station needs to speak to a different attorney you cannot change a right into a privilege statues codes rules regulations must must must comply with the Constitution New station these are your rights as well learn something
Disrupting? You mean he was trying to notify the citizens and the board to the fact that the chief had misappropriated city funds for his own gain? It's funny you leave that part out of your headline. You didn't mention how the city was taking steps to cover up that crime either. This guy was threatened with arrest while accusing the police chief of breaking the law and had evidence to back it up. And you lead with him being a disruption to the meeting. Stop calling yourself news. You are a cog in the propaganda machine at this point. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Im just curious what grand end do you see at the end of that tunnel exactly? Has there ever been a happy story of government over reach, propaganda news, or corrupt political leaders? Or are you just so short-sighted by personal gain that the world can burn around you, so long as you sit upon some imaginary throne of success. In what way does misrepresentation of what this was benefit anyone other than the corruption that we see in this meeting?
Way to clip out the most important parts of supreme courts cases the gentleman provided. This is why city council got a nice envelope with prices they have to pay back for infringing rights because their feeling got hurt. following the same guidelines and using my free speech, you suck as a news station for not providing unbiased news. Hope your rating plummet☺️
I know I am about to step in on the other side of where nearly everyone who wants to speak up on this thread stands, but speech when used to incite violence does not have the protections of the first amendment, this has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, i.e. Brandenburg vs Ohio. If dude wants to speak his 3 minutes on how bad, terrible, incompetent, immoral or greedy this Mayor or City Council may be, he is perfectly welcome to. But when he starts using language that is used to incite or provoke violence, voice threats and cause fear, he is stepping outside the protection of the first amendment. One can express their disapproval, or disagreement with the city council bringing up all of one’s criticisms and concerns without threats, and using speech to provoke or incite violence or cause fear. The First Gentleman may or may not be accustomed to using language to incite and provoke, we were only showed a quick snippet and small amount of what he said but he seemed very comfortable saying it, and if he will use it here with these members of the community, if it is okay for him to use this type of speech here at a council meeting with other members of the community. Is that his right to become unruly and provoke people into fighting or fear when he feels someone took his Parking spot? When a customer service person at Home Depot won’t accept a return because he has the improper receipt? When a neighbor has a dog that barks in the morning?
In another video of this same event you will see that the First Gentleman says to Mayor Gomez, and I quote, “YOU WORK FOR ME BOY!!! As a white person myself, I hate when false racist allegations are brought into these type of discussions, but calling a 50 year old man BOY, and saying “You work for me, as opposed to you work for US. There is a big difference and the Mayor works for the people not a single person. That could easily be interpreted as racist speech for a white man to call a 50 minority man boy and say, “You work for me”. And I didn’t get to hear everything that was said but that alone is grounds to lose the microphone at a city council meeting, and any lawyer that defends that is in the wrong!
