WE’RE ZOOMING WITH THE DAWG ON THURSDAY AT 10! JOIN ME AND SHELLIE CROW AS WE DISCUSS NEW WAYS TO USE A DOI PLAN.
The board president stopped Billy Ison from completing his remarks during public comment at the school board meeting. The board president relied on the board policy that allowed him to interrupt, warn, or stop a speaker who was “abusive” “antagonistic” or making remarks that were “personally directed.” The 6th Circuit held that what the board president did violated the First Amendment. Key Quote:
The antagonistic restriction, by definition, prohibits speech opposing the Board…..And abusive prohibits “insulting” language,…..with “personally directed,” meaning simply abusive speech directed at one person per the Board’s interpretation. These terms plainly fit in the “broad” scope of impermissible viewpoint discrimination because like in Matal, Iancu, and American Freedom Defense Initiative, they prohibit speech purely because it disparages or offends.
Matal and Iancu are SCOTUS cases that the 6th Circuit relied on, while American Freedom Defense is an earlier 6th Circuit decision.
The court was OK with the school’s requirement that those who wanted to speak during public comment had to sign up for it at least two days in advance, and do so in person. That was viewed as a “time, place, and manner” restriction that did not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. But the desire of the board to avoid disparaging and offensive remarks was viewed as discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. The board would allow Mr. Ison to praise the board, but not to disparage, offend or be “antagonistic.” Citing a remark by Justice Alito in the Matal case, the court noted that “giving offense is a viewpoint.”
It's Ison v. Madison Local School District Board of Education, decided by the 6th Circuit on July 7, 2021 and cited at 3 F.4th 887.
DAWG BONE: REVIEW YOUR “PUBLIC COMMENT” GUIDELINES WITH YOUR SCHOOL ATTORNEY.
Got a question or comment for the Dawg? Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com.
Tomorrow: Toolbox Tuesday!!