HATE-BOMBING AND POETRY RECITATIONS: HANDLING DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC COMMENT

Written by Amy Ackerman¹

INTRODUCTION²

When the pandemic hit, city councils held their meetings remotely, using Zoom and similar technologies. Even as councils returned to in-person meetings, many continued to allow residents to attend and make public comment remotely. Residents enjoy the convenience of remote attendance, and many councils saw greater attendance at their meetings. Unfortunately, in the past year, many councils in California and nationwide have had their meetings disrupted by groups of remote attendees spewing racist and antisemitic vitriol. These events have been referred to as "Zoom-bombing," but more properly should be termed "hate-bombing." In response to these incidents, many councils, believing that the Brown Act and the First Amendment require councils to allow this speech, stopped remote attendance or stopped allowing remote public comment. This article argues against the necessity of abandoning remote attendance and comment, and that there remains a path consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence to control hate-speech at council meetings. That path is not entirely without legal risks, but should be considered when balanced against the potential of losing a valuable means of encouraging public participation in governance.