Read prepared comment at council meeting denouncing ‘social media’ resolution as attempt to quell dissent
Defended local activist attacked for over-the-top social media posts
Cited Supreme Court case law supporting ‘rhetorical hyperbole’
MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council deferred action on a resolution that would ask citizens to limit their free speech in accordance with a set of rules laid out in the document, authored by Councilman at Large Rick Danielson.
The proposed Resolution 23-22 was deferred by a unanimous vote of the City Council after it met strong resistance from other members of the council, including Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire.
Mandeville Daily editorialized against this perceived overreach and believe its intention was to have a “chilling effect” on dissent against the Sucette Harbor project.
Mandeville Daily believed it to be paramount to act against this attempted overreach by government in the long-standing tradition of other publications and media outlets that felt duty-bound to act when governments violated or attempted to violate or quell the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in general.
Danielson opened the discussion on the resolution by making an impassioned if not angry statement against social media posts that he described as being over-the-line and said his resolution offered a set of rules that it would be good if everyone abided.
Mandeville Daily’s editor and proprietor William Kropog read a statement during the public comment session. The statement was altered at the last minute to refute an argument that Danielson made moments earlier claiming that resolutions do not carry the weight of law. The reality is, resolutions are indeed binding. For example, the City Council’s rules for conducting its meetings are set by resolution. Mandeville Daily feared that this resolution would be used as an extension of those existing rules (including the three-minute time limit) to force people to apologize for social media transgressions before being allowed to participate at meetings.
The statement is as follows:
The three-minute speaking rule… that was set by resolution. The way the resolution reads, you could hold people inside (the council meetings) responsible for what they might say outside chambers.
It is my opinion that just the mere introduction of Resolution 23-22 is meant to intimidate the public from speaking or posting on social media in opposition to the Sucette Harbor project.
It’s one thing to have a rule governing public conduct inside Council Chambers, but to extend it to outside is unacceptable, even if it is just a so-called resolution.
This could have a chilling effect on dissent.
Remember, we already had a sitting councilman state on the record at the last City Council meeting (District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller) that he is investigating anyone connected to an activist who made offending social media posts, and a lawyer for Sucette Harbor threaten a lawsuit against anyone “insinuating” things about his integrity. Both of these threats — allowed to go unchecked by the council chair — were in my opinion beneath the decorum.
Regardless of what anyone wrote on social media, it does not justify broad threats against everyone else in the chamber nor does it justify this resolution.
I feel the council chairman had an obligation to reign in the threat by Mr. Harrison as soon as it occurred. Again, this was beneath the decorum.
Though I disagree with it, I believe the activist’s body of comments on social media and the email they sent to the City Council are legally protected speech.
The activist accused Mr. Harrison of making campaign contributions, which are perfectly legal. The fact that the activist believes a legal campaign contribution is the same as a “bride” does not make it so. She described the offense in detail, further supported by a social media post by Dr. Kreller’s own campaign at his own fundraiser.
Rhetorical hyperbole is a First Amendment-based doctrine that often provides protection to exaggerated, over-the-top speech in defamation cases.
The doctrine provides breathing space to freedom of speech by ensuring that even heated and emotional rhetoric deserves free-speech protection in a free society.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Greenbelt Cooperative Publication Association v. Bresler (1970) that the use of the term “blackmail” to refer to a developer’s negotiating style was rhetorical hyperbole more than an imputation of criminal conduct. The Court reasoned that “even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered the developer’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.”
The anti-Sucette-Harbor activist in question, did an eerily similar thing, again and again, describing and providing photos of a perfectly legal thing — that no one involved disputes happened as she described — except she applied the rhetorical hyperbole “bribe” to the act.
Protected speech. Ugly, maybe. Incendiary, sure. But Constitutionally protected nonetheless.
I respectfully ask that the resolution not be adopted.
-30-
Mandeville Daily 
We served the council with a legal notice stating any and all constitutional laws and responsibilities of our elected officials that they swore to upon oath of office. Anyone can see when Terry O’Pry hands and envelope to the council and states, “you have been served”Please contact us for a copy to do with what you like.
LikeLike
Terry O’Pry served the city council and Mayor with a legally binding NOTICE at lady night’s meeting as can be clearly seen per recorded meeting. Please contact us for a copy to do with what you will. Was written and served by we the people. It is a template for further and fucture grievances by we the people. Addressing the peoples business.
LikeLike