Bigots are hijacking our public meetings. It’s time for all of SLO County to clap back | Opinion

This is a busy time of year for homophobes.

In the weeks leading up to and extending into June, many cities and counties across California have Pride Month on their agendas.

Maybe they’re considering a resolution supporting the LGBTQ+ community or discussing whether to fly the rainbow flag at city hall. Whatever the proposal, Pride is a cue for haters to come out of the woodwork, taking advantage of the relative anonymity of Zoom to participate in public comment sessions.

They often give fake names — or first names only — without ever having to show their faces or identify where they live. For all we know, they could live across the country or across town.

These cowards then proceed to attack the LGBTQ+ community in the vilest of ways. And they don’t stop there — they use their digital soapbox to assault listeners with racist and anti-Semitic comments while glorifying the white race and “European culture.”

Opinion

It’s a grotesque abuse of one of the most sacred of American institutions — the town hall meeting — and it makes a mockery of efforts to restore some semblance of civility to public discourse, at least at the local level.

The trolling has gotten so bad that some jurisdictions no longer allow Zoom or telephone comments during live meetings.

A tirade in Arroyo Grande

In San Luis Obispo County, “Zoom-bombing” is nothing new, but it’s gotten nastier.

In February, trolls used Zoom to make racist and antisemitic calls during a San Luis Obispo City Council meeting. The city no longer allows public comments via Zoom, though verbal messages can be voice mailed up to three hours before a meeting.

Following an ugly, homophobic and racist Zoom-bombing at a recent Atascadero City Council meeting, officials there are evaluating how to handle public comment in the future.

There was an even worse tirade during a Pride discussion at the April 23 meeting of the Arroyo Grande City Council. While the comments made in person were respectful, when the council opened the session to Zoom calls, all hell broke loose.

One commenter referred to the Pride flag as the “butt sex flag.” There were calls to hang pedophiles, to “get rid” of Jews, to provide reparations to white people and to fly the Nazi flag.

The city attorney sometimes broke in and warned callers to stay on topic. But because hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, there is only so much cities can do.

If public agencies try to set limits — such as forbidding profanity or discriminatory comments — they risk a First Amendment lawsuit.

How cities can counter hate speech

Local agencies aren’t completely powerless.

They can mute a remote speaker who is causing a disturbance, but the “disturbance” bar is high.

State law defines it as behavior that “actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting.” Also, the law requires that officials give disruptive speakers a warning before cutting them off.

Officials do have some control over the topics that speakers are allowed to address, however.

During general comment — an opportunity for participants to talk about matters not listed on the agenda — local officials are required by state law to listen to items of general interest that are within their “subject matter jurisdiction.” That means they are under no obligation to allow comment on controversial issues like foreign policy, abortion and immigration, though speakers often argue that local agencies do have the power to pass resolutions on those topics.

During public comment on items that are on the agenda, speakers can be required to stick to that specific issue. On an item dealing with Pride, for instance, it would be considered acceptable under free speech rules to demonize the LGBTQ+ community — but speakers would risk being muted if they tried to do the same to any other group.

Pulling the plug on Zoom comments

Several California agencies — especially cities — have taken the decisive step of cutting off remote access. Comments can still be made in person — as required under California’s Brown Act — submitted in writing or in some case prerecorded on a phone line.

In addition to San Luis Obispo, Sacramento, Modesto, San Bernardino, Redwood City, El Cerrito, Moorpark, Walnut Creek, Morgan Hill and Monclair are among the cities that have either stopped accepting Zoom comments or have placed limits on them.

The decisions have not been easy.

In a policy statement, the city of Montclair says it “regrets the need to take this step,” but added that is has a duty to protect its citizens “from the harmful and disruptive effects of racism and bigotry.”

Trolling continues in Walnut Creek

The move has not totally shut down the haters, however.

In Walnut Creek, white supremacists began showing up in person at council meetings after the city shut off Zoom calls last year due to antisemitic comments.

That galvanized Rabbi Cantor Jennie Chabon.

“As soon as I learned that men were driving from 90 minutes away in swastika-emblazoned, white-power T-shirts to speak for two minutes, I knew we had to start showing up,” she wrote in an opinion piece published by The Jewish News of Northern California.

“I cannot personally change the outcome of the devastating war in Gaza. I cannot influence the decisions of university presidents. I cannot bring the hostages home,” she continued. “But I can show up at our local city council meeting with my community members and beloved clergy friends and stand together in solidarity against hatred.”

Arroyo Grande mayor: ‘I want public access’

Cutting off Zoom trolls may not put an end to hate speech, but it at least forces bigots out in he open.

But that comes at a cost. It also makes it harder for locals — especially those who can’t attend meetings in person — to have their voices heard.

That’s a concern for Arroyo Grande Mayor Caren Ray Russom, who explained her position in a statement she read during that awful Zoom-bombing session in April.

“I want to tell the public and staff that while we may sometimes seem divided on certain issues, the city is united against hate,” she read.

She went on to say that she’s not willing to shut down remote access.

“I want to allow people to call in from their homes and I want public access and I want all of you to have that privilege ...” she said. “But this is the trade-off.”

She has a point. Shutting off remote access lets the haters win.

But it also exposes the very members of the community the council is trying to protect to unbridled hate.

And there’s not much that can be done about it. It’s not easy to know when a online speaker is going to veer off into an abusive, threatening rant. There’s no opportunity to issue a trigger warning so that listeners can turn down the volume if they’re at home, or leave the room if they’re attending a meeting in person.

Perhaps most residents of Arroyo Grande — and every other community like it — would be willing to give up Zoom calls if it shuts down obscene rants from individuals too cowardly to show their faces.

And if those trolls should decide to attend in person, as they did in Walnut Creek, here’s what we can do.

We can follow the course set by Rabbi Chabon.

We can start showing up.