Not What You Were Expecting To Hear: More Strategies for Handling Hate Speech During Public Comment

Unfortunately, the trend of individuals spewing hateful rhetoric during the public comment portion of public meetings continues. Since When Hate Comes to Town: Addressing Racist and Anti-Semitic Public Comment at Meetings was published by MRSC in November 2023, we have heard from several jurisdictions about hate speech incidents, both remotely (i.e., “zoom-bombing”) and in person. And a quick internet search finds local news articles describing recent public comment disruptions in Black Diamond, Lacey, Buckley, Ellensburg, Tacoma, and Pierce County, to name just some of the impacted jurisdictions.

In response to this phenomenon, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) hosted a virtual forum called Hijacked by Hate Speech in early April. It was an opportunity for local elected officials to talk to one another about their experiences and share strategies they are using to attempt to avoid or minimize the negative impacts of these disruptions.

This blog will provide a basic legal overview regarding public comments, share some of the strategies discussed at the AWC forum, and offer examples of public comment rule changes. Finally, we will compile articles and resources providing guidance on how to legally and practically manage these difficult situations.

Public Comment Basics

Governing bodies are authorized to establish rules of conduct and decorum for their meetings. If public comment is taken at a meeting, this is considered a limited public forum. A government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such comments, but they must be viewpoint neutral, clear (not vague), and not overly broad.

Under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), public comment is required at or before every regular meeting where final action is taken, and it can be either in written or oral form. A jurisdiction need not offer a remote public comment opportunity unless:

1. oral comment is allowed at the in-person meeting, and
2. an individual requests an accommodation because it is difficult for them to participate in person and it is feasible for the agency to offer remote comment. See RCW 42.30.240(2).

Local Government Strategies for Handling Hateful Public Comment

Jurisdictions should anticipate the possibility of hate speech incidents during public comment and plan ahead. In addition to the ideas included in MRSC’s Strategies for Managing Difficult Public Meetings and the very good, practical guidance detailed in an Orange County, CA memo, below are some ways jurisdictions are preparing for and responding to this increase in hate speech during public comment.

Conferring with the agency’s attorney

We heard from several officials at Hijacked by Hate Speech about the importance of talking with the agency’s attorney to understand what their options are when/if a hate speech disruption occurs.

Officials need to be familiar with their locally adopted rules as well as constitutional limitations on regulating speech in a limited public forum. Offensive, personal, and hateful remarks alone are generally insufficient justification to cut off a speaker. Conduct must be actually disruptive or in violation of viewpoint-neutral council rules before a speaker can be silenced or removed from a meeting.

For more legal background related to public comment, see the Basic Legal Considerations slide show that I presented at Hijacked by Hate Speech, as well as the resources linked at the end of this blog.

Having ready access to meeting rules and prepared scripts

At the meeting, it helps when officials have easy access to and can cite the relevant local rules related to public comment and meeting disruptions. Some jurisdictions have scripts available for the presiding officer and other officials to read in case of an incident.

Here are two prepared statements that have been used by the Mayor of Kirkland, Kelli Curtis, with the first addressing a hate speech incident as it is happening:

Please terminate the call. The individual is not complying with our Council rules on public comment. I also want to note for the audience that recently there has been a significant increase in many cities where individuals are disrupting council meetings anonymously by Zoom making hateful and disruptive comments, as we have experienced tonight.

And the second for responding to the incident after it has happened:

Before continuing, I want to offer a comment on behalf of our Council. We heard statements tonight that were hurtful, and offensive to our community. The City Council does not condone those comments and they are actually disruptive to our meeting. We are committed to making Kirkland a safe, inclusive, and welcoming place for all. At the same time, “Items From The Audience” provides an opportunity for community members to express their views to Council, regardless of content.

Educating oneself about hate speech

We have heard how some local officials have been caught flat footed because they were unfamiliar with some of the phrases and language commonly associated with certain movements known to be linked to these disruptions (e.g., White supremacy). It can help to educate oneself about these movements and language so you are aware when a person’s comment may be veering in that direction.

Understanding meeting technology

Staff and officials should be well-trained in both remote and in-person meeting technology, including how to quickly mute or disable someone’s ability to speak or display video. For example, in Zoom, there is a ‘permission to talk’ feature that gives control to the host (rather than the commenter) to turn on and off a microphone. Likewise, the meeting host could disable the video of attendees to avoid visual zoom-bombing disruptions.

Setting the tone for a productive and welcoming public meeting

Be clear on the goals for the public meeting and for public engagement. First and foremost, a meeting of a public agency’s governing body is for the purpose of transacting the business of the public agency. Consistent with that, the governing body has control over the agenda and when and how to accept public comment during a meeting — and, ideally, this is clearly set forth in the council or commission rules. The presiding officer could offer a statement to that effect at the beginning of each meeting.

Agencies could also prepare a statement and post signs that describe the type of meeting environment the local government is striving for (e.g., safe and welcoming space; productive dialogue about agency business) and/or a code of conduct for its meetings. While this may not prevent hate speech from occurring, it will help set a positive tone and welcoming environment for all members of the public.

Amending public comment rules

We are aware of several jurisdictions that have changed their rules in response to, or in anticipation of, hate speech interruptions. In the past year, Gig Harbor and Ellensburg both amended their council rules to suspend remote comment. Ellensburg has since reinstated public comment, however an individual must register 24 hours in advance of the meeting and also indicate “the topic upon which they wish to speak with sufficient detail to allow the Mayor to determine whether it pertains to City business or a matter over which Council has control.” See Ellensburg Council Rules of Procedure, Rule 7.2b.

College Place amended its rules to require advance registration for remote comment, which must include a person’s first and last name, address or place of residence, and the topic or topics the comment will touch upon.

Seattle has carefully laid out what constitutes a “disruption” during public comment as well as the specific authority of the presiding officer to handle disruptions in chapter XI, section D of the General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council. In chapter XI, section C, Seattle limits public comment to “matters on the Introduction and Referral Calendar, Committee Reports on that day's regular City Council meeting agenda, and other matters directly related to the City Council Work Program.”

The Shoreline City Council's Rules of Procedure were amended to limit comment to matters “pertaining to City business” and to give the city clerk the ability to remove a person’s permission to talk via videoconference (see section 6.1). See also Bellingham's Guidelines for Public Comments at Council Meetings and Camas' Resident – Public Meetings Guidelines, and well as examples on our Council/Board of Commissioners Rules of Procedure webpage.

Conclusion and Resources

It is in the interest of local government (and a functioning democracy) to ensure that the public has an opportunity to speak on local matters during public meetings. A council, board, or commission must balance this objective with its own goal of conducting business in an efficient and productive manner. Advanced planning and thoughtful rulemaking can help jurisdictions strike a healthy balance, allowing for public participation while hopefully minimizing disruptions.

Finally, here are additional resources that provide both legal and practical guidance on how to handle challenging meetings.

From Ann Macfarlane/Jurassic Parliament:

• 50 Guidelines for Public Comment
• Citizen's Guide to Effective Public Meetings
• Don’t Get into Back-and-Forth Exchanges During Public Comment

From MRSC:

• When First Amendment Rights and Public Meetings Clash
• When Hate Comes to Town: Addressing Racist and Anti-Semitic Public Comment at Meetings
• Basic Legal Consideration slide show from AWC’s Hijacked by Hate Speech forum.
• Practical Tips for Holding Hybrid Meetings
• Strategies for Managing Difficult Public Meetings

Additional resources:

• Orange County, CA: Free Speech vs. Hate Speech - Practical Guidelines for Managing Public Forums — Includes helpful guidance on options for managing public meetings.
• ADL Center on Extremism: Toolkit for Responding to Extremist Disruptions at Public Meetings (2023)