������ýapp�ٷ�

• National free speech group FIREflags 20 cities and towns that restrict citizens’ First Amendment rights
• Another city — Eastpointe, MI — learned the hard way that censorship doesn’t pay, ponying up $83K after violating four citizens’ rights at a city council meeting

DETROIT, Feb. 6, 2025 — The FIREtoday urged 20 Michigan cities and towns — from Grand Rapids to Saginaw — to reform public comment policies that unconstitutionally censor their citizens.

“Public office doesn’t come with the power to muzzle the people you serve,” said FIREDirector of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr. “These cities should immediately repeal their unconstitutional public comment rules to avoid being dragged into court. Otherwise they won’t just be violating the First Amendment — they’ll be writing checks to the constituents they tried to silence.”

The First Amendment and recent court rulings affirm citizens’ right to criticize government officials and otherwise speak their minds during the public comment periods of city council meetings. Rules that unduly restrict this right are illegal, undemocratic, and prevalent in Michigan.

Local governments can impose reasonable, well-defined, viewpoint-neutral restrictions on public comments at their meetings. They can, for example, prohibit genuinely disruptive conduct — such as speaking out of turn or making true threats. But the rules in these 20 towns go too far, banning large swaths of protected speech. Many bar “personal attacks” on government officials, some are plain bizarre, and all are unconstitutional.

• Clinton Township bans talk of excrement, “disrespectful” references to the supernatural, and “personal attacks.” 
• The use of “vulgar, obscene . . . or otherwise inappropriate language or gestures” is prohibited at Southgate City Council meetings.
• Romulus City Council bans remarks with racial, ethnic, religious, sexual or national origin “overtones.” 
• “Abusive” and “personally directed” public comments are prohibited at Park Township government meetings.
• Rochester Hills City Council bans “inappropriate” public comments at its meetings.

Similar rules have not fared well in court. In 2018, a man was ejected from an Ohio school board meeting after criticizing the board for suppressing opposition to pro-gun views. He sued and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — which has jurisdiction over the Great Lakes State — sided with him. Its decision invalidated bans on “antagonistic,” “abusive,” and “personally directed” public comments at local government meetings.

Four years later, FIREput those principles to work when we represented several Eastpointe, MI, residents in their suit against the city and its mayor. Then-Mayor Monique Owens used a rule barring comments directed at city council members as justification to shout down and silence four constituents who tried to criticize her during public-comment periods. Last year, Eastpointe reached a settlement with the residents that required the city to stop enforcing the unconstitutional rule, pay each plaintiff $17,910, and pay additional attorneys’ fees.

When municipal bodies fail to respect constituents’ First Amendment rights, they can expect to hear from ������ýapp�ٷ�.

• A Surprise, AZ, mom was forcibly ejected from a city council meeting for criticizing the city attorney’s pay raise, and FIREis now representing her in a lawsuit.  
• After a Uvalde, TX, dad was banned from school grounds for questioning the qualifications of a school district police officer at a school board meeting, FIREgot the school district to lift the ban. 
• A man was ejected from an Edison, NJ, city council meeting for violating its ban on “props” — by holding a copy of the U.S. Constitution and a small American flag. Thanks to ������ýapp�ٷ�’s advocacy, the council quickly repealed the ridiculous ban.

FIRE is happy to help local governments bring their public comment policies into compliance with the First Amendment, free of charge. In 2023, FIREsuccessfully worked with Bay City, MI, to eliminate its unconstitutional restrictions on public comments that were “derogatory,” "vulgar," or "demeaning” to city officials or employees.

“The First Amendment doesn’t protect politicians’ egos,” Terr said. “It protects the public’s right to hold them accountable.”

The FIRE(������ýapp�ٷ�) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIREeducates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

CONTACT

Jack Whitten, Communications Campaign Specialist, ������ýapp�ٷ�: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org