Cities across San Mateo County have decided to limit online participation during public meetings after being hit by a slew of “Zoom bombings,” hate-filled attacks by anonymous speakers.
For weeks now, cities up and down the Bay Area have been targeted during public meetings by online speakers, some who initially appear to be average citizens commenting on city business, who instead pivot to slur-filled rants about people of color, of Jewish faith, immigrants and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community.
Among San Mateo County cities to be hit so far are Pacifica, San Mateo, South San Francisco and San Carlos. Some members of the South City Council walked off the dais when the attacks occurred and San Carlos officials opted to take a recess before reconvening their meeting and offering speakers an initial warning after causing a disruption before finally cutting the speaker off.
“I was horrified about what was being said but also wanted to understand what our ability was to manage that,” San Carlos Mayor Adam Rak said. “I think part of the challenge is we don’t know where it’s coming from and I don’t know that we individually as San Carlos have the technological ability to track people down on that.”
Officials are now tasked with deciding how to move forward — allow live remote public comment and brace for hate speech, or limit online access to preserve order. Some have opted to temporarily pause live remote comments until councils have a chance to discuss the issue in public including San Carlos, Pacifica, Burlingame and South San Francisco, according to the mayors of each of the cities.
Meanwhile, Redwood City is pausing its remote live access through the end of the year, according to an announcement from Mayor Jeff Gee in a press release published Sept. 29. San Mateo, which was hit during a council meeting earlier this week, is still evaluating its options and next steps, City Manager Alex Khojikian said in an email statement Friday.
“The recent hate-filled, racist Zoom bombings that have occurred during public meetings across the Bay Area are disturbing and anti-democratic. We stand firmly against racism and the type of hate speech that unidentified individuals shared during one of our recent City Council meetings,” Khojikian said. “The primary goal of any of our public meetings is to encourage participation in our local governance, and we are evaluating possible next steps to take to help ensure our council chambers — virtual or in person — remain a respectful and welcoming place for our San Mateo community.”
Having watched the attacks San Mateo received, Burlingame Mayor Michael Brownrigg said the decision to pause remote public comment was an easy one. He said he has zero patience for hate speech, noting the comments damage public trust and community relations.
Recommended for you
“To me, it’s pretty simple. The point of a public meeting is to allow members of the public who have an interest in local government to be able to speak their minds about what’s happening and to present ideas of ways to do things better. In no fashion does the kind of speech San Mateo was subject to meet those criteria,” Brownrigg said. “I’m happy to listen to ideas from people who don’t agree with me or people who are well-founded in their views. I’m not prepared to listen to hate and divisiveness from people whose only purpose is to make people upset.”
Alternatively, South San Francisco Mayor Buenaflor Nicolas said she could tolerate the comments given that people have a constitutional right to free speech. A key reason she and her city opted to temporarily pause online public comment is to ensure the body’s work doesn’t get “sidetracked.”
The city has previously come under fire after the council temporarily ended online comments in 2020 in response to meetings going late into the morning hours as residents expressed their concerns about police brutality and racial inequities. Nicolas said she disagreed with that decision and considered that history when now opting to pause remote comments. Ultimately, she argues the situations are different.
“I don’t feel like I should suppress anybody but the people there in 2020, their views were not hateful. It wasn’t hate speech. They were speaking up from a place of discontent with perceived injustices and discrimination. It’s very different. What these people are doing now, they want to create chaos and that is not the same as what we had,” Nicolas said.
For Pacifica, one of the first cities in San Mateo County to be targeted by the Zoom bombings, Mayor Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck said he also doesn’t mind giving the commenters a stage, arguing it gives people insight into why elections matter. His decision to pause live remote comments was rooted in protecting staff and the general public who may be greatly affected by the hateful comments.
Bigstyck said addressing the Zoom bombings creates a complicated dilemma between the First Amendment that guarantees a person’s right to free speech and the Brown Act, which outlines the rules for public meetings.
Officials were pessimistic about any possible legal or criminal actions being brought against those Bigstyck described as “cowardly troublemakers,” but they agreed they’d like to reconvene online public comment, lauding the COVID-era tool as valuable for bringing more people into the governing process. It’s unclear at this point what modifications may be possible to do so while preventing hate speech but officials noted the public can participate in meetings in the meantime either in person or by submitting emails to city clerks.
“This is an act of cowardice and we must not lose sight of the fact that no matter what they’re trying to accomplish, they’re using abject cowardice to accomplish it,” Bigstyck said. “Their ability to engender fear is the only strength they possess, so where they are cowardly, we must use boldness. … So long as we remain strong in a loving, peaceful fashion, they won’t have a hold.”
I initially thought the reporter was the victim of a crazy hoax but the mayor of Pacifica is actually named Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck! Anyway, I hope a solution can be found that allows more people to participate in local government. It already feels like elected officials don't want to hear from the public, I hope that a few bad apples don't end up limiting our ability to do this even further.
One might argue that this is a First Amendment issue if these are merely random individual crackpots behaving in this manner.
However, if there is an organized effort to disrupt public business, this might very well be an important issue for the FBI to investigate. This matter should be referred to them. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have the technical means to make that determination even if localities like San Carlos do not. Just the threat of FBI involvement might be enough to make individual cranks go away.
This offensive behavior should not, however, result in a decision to completely cut off online public participation in government meetings. That might be exactly the objective that these people are seeking to accomplish!
Having said this, Team Trump has already cast its usual aspersions on the FBI (as they do to anyone who opposes them - read the Amazon reviews of Cassidy Hutchison’s #1 best seller “Enough”), and they will undoubtedly protest that this is further “politicization” of that agency. Tough! Free speech is not completely without limits.
Great comment, and I agree this had to have been an organized effort. I was on the zoom meeting for San Mateo and I never felt it was a First Amendment issue but just hate speech, pure and simple, that was horrifying to hear over and over. I hope the FBI does get involved.
Wow David - talking about opening Pandora's box. Do you want the FBI which already send heavily armed members to arrest a peaceful abortion clinic protester in front of his wife and children? Those members who infiltrated and possibly incited the mob on January 6? FBI members who planted themselves under order of the Director in Roman Catholic churches to spy on subversive homilies? Yes, we need to keep them busy. You must really long for a police state. Who is the crackpot here?
You mean the same FBI that had agent provocateurs instigating the whole fake "J6 Insurrection"? Free speech IS without limits though....it says so in the Constitution. That is why it is the FIRST Amendment. There is a reason it is so general - so Pharisees like you dont try to twist the fine print. Weaponization of government is Bolshevism. I suggest you read some Antony Sutton and maybe get your knowledge to an acceptable level for public discourse....it might just be a better use of your time than reading Cassidy Hutchinsons book. But call that a shot in the dark.
Err - FFGig - I must have missed your comments during the onslaught of the BLM rioters when whole city blocks burned down and hundreds were even killed or injured. Could you refresh my memory? Were they members of the MALA cult? Thank you.
Speeches that incite violence are against the law, so, sorry, but there are limits on speech. If any law enforcement agency acts illegally, the legal system can take action against them too. I realize that this second sentence is little comfort to MAGA Republicans who believe that the entire system is conspiring against them, so unfortunately that is where the impasse remains. Further discussion will not budge either side. However, most reasonable Americans simply do not want to have democratic processes, like those mentioned in the article above, disrupted by paranoid extremists spouting Nazi-like hate speech. If one were to walk into a court of law and disrupt the proceedings, one would be charged with contempt of court. I do not know all of the legal niceties involved with public meetings, but it sure seems to me that there must, or at least should be, similar legal means to stop this completely out-of-line behavior without ending all online meeting participation. I assume local attorneys can address this much better than I.
David - the MAGA Republican is a term concocted by the left and it serves nothing but dividing us even further. Many on the left, just recently your Queen Hillary, use far more provoking language but you, like all liberals, just ignore that. Republicans are not a monolithic bunch and have more guts than the lock-step, programmed leftists who frequent these LTE pages. Do you ever wonder why there does not appear to be any dissent on the Democrat side of the aisle? Is that really democratic or are they just lazy and are paid to be kept quiet?
Dirk - when I use the term MAGA Republicans, it refers to Republicans who support former president Trump as opposed to Republicans like Liz Cheney, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, etc., who oppose him.
The Democrats are not as monolithic as you imply, but that is off the topic. The topic is preventing the disruption of local government meetings due to hate speech.
How do you suggest we stop people from misbehaving in the local government meetings as mentioned in the article above?? I would not be surprised if many if not all of these people misbehaving fall into the MAGA Republican category, particularly when Trump himself makes statements about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country” recently in a National Pulse interview. When the leader also refers to certain countries as “sh—hole countries,” is it any surprise that brainless followers imitate his horrible example???
If you don’t like my suggestion of getting the FBI involved, how do you propose to solve this problem??? Or do you think that it is acceptable behavior???
The Republican party is a clown show...BTW, violence of any type cannot be tolerated. Over 10,000 protestors during the 2020 riots were arrested and charged...most for low-level offenses such as obstructing roadways, failure to disperse. A little over 3% of the demonstrations that summer involved property damage or vandalism. Attempting to overturn an election by attacking the U.S. Capital and threatening lawmakers, I'm guessing, is a tad more serious than blocking a roadway, right Dirk?
Are you kidding me? Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Republicans? That is the old party that I just resigned from. Do you know anything about Liz Cheney, as to how she managed to get her Dad to become VP? If you don't. we are done talking. The Republican Party is doomed if it adheres to the old school. I sense a complete misunderstanding or appreciation of where the nation is moving and it is without the established political parties. Many Republicans do not like Trump as a person but they do like his agenda. I am one of them. Actually, I liked Obama as a person but could not agree with his agenda. Do you even fathom the difference? Why would RFK Jr even being discussed? it is a signal, David!
Dirk, I guess that you don’t have an answer to my question on the topic of the main article above. Your vitriol above comes across as nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the main question which you completely ignored.
Mr. Kristofferson, you mean the FBI that did such a bang up job pushing the Russian Collusion Delusion? The FBI that denied Hunter Biden’s laptop was real? You mean the FBI that ignores the Biden Crime Family and treasonous Biden’s activities in Ukraine? If you want to talk about offensive behavior, I’d say the FBI is worse than the “merely random individual crackpots behaving in this manner” you speak of.
And who is this Cassidy Hutchison person of whom you speak? Perhaps you decided to ignore the “n” the same way Ms. Hutchinson ignores the truth. Ms. Hutchinson has raised the art of hearsay. She bases her truths on hearsay from hearsay. Of course that might be exactly the objective she’s pushing, making money off easily swayed folks infected with TDS.
Your apology is accepted, Mr. Kristofferson. I forgive you for not wanting to engage since our last “discussion” didn’t work out so well for you. I'm still awaiting answers but I'll wait for you to finish up with the inimitable Mr. van Ulden. Have a blessed day.
OK, Terrence, I will give you the time that you deserve today. Please read those last six words carefully.
Your perception that "our last "discussion" didn't work out well for you" is *your* perception. From my viewpoint, when I finally decided to engage with you on the science around climate change, you quickly changed the topic, saying only "assume climate change is true" and then moved on to complaining about climate change hypocrites and numerous other grievances that you have. The only reason that I didn't respond to those points is because you quite regularly can not stay on topic. As soon as it looks like you might have to concede a point to the opposing side, you have a great tendency to divert the conversation to yet another grievance. Consequently, instead of ever coming to an agreement, both sides simply engage in religious warfare without end. That is the only reason that I stopped replying to you, NOT because your debating skills are so refined and logical. I could have answered you but it would have only generated another round of different complaints without conclusion. I have little desire to engage in that kind of "conversation."
You might notice above that Dirk and I were able to arrive at some common ground because he is not a "true believer" always spouting phrases like "our great President Trump, ""Biden Crime Family," and other right wing catch phrases. Ray Fowler is also a very reasonable and knowledgeable person who contributes to these pages from a right-of-center viewpoint. Try emulating some of their give-and-take and perhaps you wouldn't always be complaining about people "ghosting" you.
I am next going to make one other reply above about Cassidy Hutchinson's book "Enough" as unfortunately the software interface here tends to quickly fragment any lengthy discussion. I kindly suggest you look for it above soon.
Not sure if this comment will be placed above or below the response that I made a few minutes ago, so sorry for any confusion created by my reference to its position in that previous response.
Cassidy Hutchinson was obviously Mark Meadow's chief assistant. When you say "She bases her truths on hearsay from hearsay.", I assume that you are referring to the incident where Trump allegedly had an altercation with his Secret Service driver about going to the Capitol. It is hard to respond when you routinely speak in blanket references like "bases her truths" and "treasonous Biden's activities."
Cassidy states quite clearly in her book who she heard that information from. She also acknowledges that other people countered her on that point, but she stands by her report.
In my opinion she clearly stated in the book the incidents that she witnessed directly in many cases and acknowledged those that she didn't. The cumulative effect of her direct observations is damning enough in my opinion, but because it refers to the entire book, this statement is also a generalization. The only way for a person to evaluate it is to read the book themselves.
Just like you constantly refer to people on the Left ignoring Hunter Biden's laptop, I believe that people on the Right are doing the same to this book. If you look at the reviews on Amazon, they are overwhelming positive but the Trump contingent is trying to flood the 1 star review space with one or two line comments questioning her veracity, not dissimilar to your comments above.
I suggest that you read the book if you haven't, Terrence. It might overturn your worldview ( but I am not going to hold my breath until this happens [beam]).
The list of insiders critical of the Trump regime continues to grow and the usual response from Team Trump is to engage in character assassination. That might work if Trump came across as a saint and his complaints about his critics were believable, but I think that this dam is going to break against him at some point in the not too distant future.
I woke up this morning and what did I see? Responses from Mr. Kristofferrson staring back at me. What an honor! Now on to the good stuff…
Your perception that “our last discussion” worked out well for you is “your” perception. So here we are… You seem to purposefully be missing the point - regardless of how you interpret climate, whether Mother Nature or man-made, you think the point is to convince us about something which folks much smarter than us have been trying to do for centuries, with no conclusions. I’ve conceded that for the purposes of argument, we can assume your worldview of the climate is true. You’d rather focus on being aggrieved that I’ve assumed your worldview. Let it go and move on. Again, let’s assume global warming is real. Who cares? If nobody is doing anything then all this hysterical screeching about attempting to explain man-made climate change means bupkis. And to follow par for your course, you ignore simple questions about the FBI.
As for your Cassidy Hutchinson book, didn’t she claim the budget director is a “faithful Mormon” when he is not? If Ms. Hutchinson is willing to lie about the little things, why wouldn’t she lie about the things that matter? I suggest that you read a few Amazon reviews or any reviews you don’t like and ascertain whether there is truth instead of waving your hand at them, likely the same way climate alarmists wave their hand when it comes to doing their part to save the world. If, Mr. Kristofferrson, your standard of “truth” now encompasses hearsay, then you have bigger problems than making feeble attempts to insult or shame me.
You might not have noticed that the inimitable community members you’ve cited, Mr. van Ulden and Mr. Fowler, among others, have been “ghosted” more than a few times, perhaps even more so than me. They have their style and I have mine, just as you have yours. I accept you for who you are. Sometimes I wish you wouldn’t obsess over the inconsequential nits and make mountains out of molehills but you gotta be you. But seriously, trying to claim your worldview of climate change is the only one? Please. Get past it and focus on what really matters, the response, or lack thereof, in addressing it. And handing get-out-of-jail-free cards to everyone? I guess in 50 more years you can again give us your worldview about Mother Nature while China and India and other countries are well on their way to being developed, with the help of fossil fuels. You know. The same fossil fuels that made America. BTW, as I said before, if you hid your Trump Derangement Syndrome hysterics, folks might take you seriously. Have a blessed day.
With statements like “handing get-out-of-jail-free cards to everyone” your hyperbole misrepresents once again what I said in a previous discussion.
Perhaps at some future time when I see that you begin to engage in an earnest conversation with others - one that shows both give and take rather than being primarily a monologue aimed at scoring debating points and exchanging insults - then I will reassess engaging with you.
Till then, adiós. 👻 <�— ghost emoji in case SMDJ software can’t process it!
So, Mr. Kristofferson, you paint yourself into a corner and are now looking to escape… Let’s recap, since you’re back in the nitpicking phase… in comments from “My beef with Terry” you wrote, “Both China and India continue to burn coal because they need to for economic reasons as does the United States and the European Union.” If not a get out of jail free card then what? Since there will always be economic reasons to burn coal, or any fossil fuel. Countries can use that excuse as well as individuals. “Green” electricity isn’t green and it costs more green to pay for supposed “green” power.
Then, in an aside to “whether some people in the climate science community may be acting hypocritically” you throw out this gem: “I am sure that many government officials have very tight schedules and are dealing with multiple international crises. The only way they can handle these issues is by taking the fastest way from place to place because many of them sincerely think that time is running out.” Really, haven’t these folks heard of Zoom, or Google Meet, Slack, Microsoft Teams, and many, many more videoconferencing apps? Much faster to appear in places while saving travel time. If not a get out of jail free card excusing folks from burning fossil fuels to their hearts’ desires because they have places to go and people to see, then what? All we see are hypocrites are telling everyone else to save the world while they’re releasing tons of carbon into the air (likely more than any of us will ever contribute in our lifetime).
Please explain how my statements are hyperbole, if you can. Meanwhile, looking forward to your future time. A hint: if you want to engage in earnest conversation with others, you may want to set an example of the decorum you’d like to see, which you can begin by refraining from repeating easily debunked fake news and lies about our great President Trump. Otherwise, readers will know you prioritize emotion over logic and facts.
David - this is a long string but it compels me to respond to your severely biased impression of what MAGA is all about. First of all, there is no evidence whatever that these obscene calls were made by MAGA types. That is simply your assumption and cannot be corroborated. It is not the FBI's role to start even more censorship in this Country. Your reference to Trump's initial speech about the type of migrants is flawed. Apparently you live in a cocoon with modern sanitary provisions. If you had stepped even over our border you would find the type of toilet that Trump referred to as quite common, certainly in the Far East and Africa. The caliber of the migrants that he mentioned has now been confirmed by our very own Border Patrol. Many hundreds have been apprehended who committed the crimes that Trump let us know about. You live with rose colored glasses. The reality of these hordes is that among them are many undesirables and we are having difficulty keeping them out. All speech is protected by the First Amendment and I can't help it that you are so easily offended by strong words. Would you rather have strong words or let our current President continue to bring in folks who you would not have in your household? Common decency will eventually shut those up who make inappropriate comments that are made by many who have no particular political affiliation. Not everything is hate speech. Hard to believe perhaps, but MAGA types do not conform with Hillary's description. She is more dangerous than Trump will ever be.
Many folks who come from these countries find these single hole sanitary provisions normal. That does not make them a lesser human being. Again, you are showing your profound ignorance. I saw these even in Paris, France not long ago.
Thanks, Mr. van Ulden, for attempting to educate Mr. Kristofferson from his narrow and biased worldview. The bigger question is why Mr. Kristofferson is not a proponent of making America great again. Perhaps this isn’t too surprising since Mr. Kristofferson willfully ignores treasonous Biden, the Biden Crime Family, and Biden’s America Last policies. If only Mr. Kristofferson could stop himself from injecting Trump Derangement Syndrome hysterics into his comments, some folks might take him seriously. As it is now, we know his responses are based more on emotion than logic. BTW, Mr. Kristofferson, why did you ghost me after our last “discussion” regarding climate alarmism and your get out of jail free cards for folks burning fossil fuels to their hearts’ desires while hypocritically lecturing us on limiting carbon emissions?
P.S. - Dirk, you might be surprised that I was not excited by Hillary’s candidacy. However, I did vote for her versus Trump because it was clear to me from the beginning that Trump was a horrible influence on American politics. I am not a person who believes that one’s personal character does not matter in politics. Sadly that belief is mainstream now on both sides. Isn’t it obvious that Hillary never incited a mob to march on the Capitol?? Blaming that on the FBI as another person commented is laughable. I just can’t accept your final comment above about Hillary being more dangerous than Trump as anything other than hyperbole.
You might also be surprised that I wish that Biden would stand aside and make way for a different candidate. I preferred Amy Klobuchar in the 2020 Democratic race.
I also agree that the southern border situation is dangerously out of control, but the solution is not to engage in attacks on Mexico as some on the Republican side are advocating.
You are also right that there are dangerous people coming across our southern border who we should be keeping out, but there are also many people fleeing a horrendous dictatorship in Venezuela. In the past Republicans would have been sympathetic to that before they started pandering to white supremacist groups (all under Trump). Congress needs to stop it’s infighting and get to work on immigration reform.
That is my brief response to your other points which were completely off the topic of the article at hand. Any of these sentences can easily balloon up into another protracted discussion of course, but that is not what the focus is on in this article.
Hopefully at the very least you and I can agree that Zoom-bombing public meetings is wrong and that the solution to this problem is not to cut off public comments. You don’t like my FBI suggestion, and I think your “common decency” solution will not solve the problem either.
Dirk states, "Common decency will eventually shut those up who make inappropriate comments that are made by many who have no particular political affiliation. Not everything is hate speech. Hard to believe perhaps, but MAGA types do not conform with Hillary's description."
Thank you, Dirk. It took three attempts along with more asides about the meaning of MAGA and pit toilets (I am a former Peace Corps volunteer), but I guess that this is the closest I will come to getting your answer to the main question here (although I think that you really "stepped into the sh__hole" with other parts of your response).
Sorry, but I disagree with your quote above. This is essentially akin to a conservative saying that criminals will stop committing crimes when they start developing pangs of guilt. I can imagine the crowd reaction to that statement during a Republican presidential debate [beam] !! I think it is also reasonably certain that people making those kind of comments would turn out to be Trump supporters even if many Trump supporters might disapprove of that behavior. It is true, however, that there are people on the left who engage in similar offensive extremist language and behavior.
People who engage in the type of behavior described in the article will not care about "common decency" and will continue to offend. The fact that Trump models this for them in public using words like "sh__hole" does not help. Since when did this become "presidential" behavior??
George Washington would be aghast if he could see what Trump was doing and even more aghast that a sizable portion of the country now accepts this behavior using excuses that "they do not like the man but love his policies" !!! This is essentially accepting that the goal justifies any means.
Trump"s "poisoning the blood" comment in his National Pulse interview is just the latest example. He will, of course, reply that he "misspoke" or this was an unfortunate aside, etc., etc., etc., but the guy is a master manipulator of the media, and I am sure drops those "offhand comments" knowing full well who the message is being sent to and conscious of its effect. If this is the best that the Republican party can come up with to represent our country, it will not survive in the long run unless it resorts to illegal means to seize power.......
I also never proposed that the FBI engage in censorship. I suggested that the FBI be called to investigate if there is an organized effort to disrupt local government meetings. As I said, if one disrupts the proceedings of a courtroom by outbursts of profanity and hate speech, one can be charged with contempt of court and removed. If an organized group, instead of random individuals, is attempting to do this around the Bay Area, it seems to me that this is something that law enforcement should look into. Shutting down all online public comment at government meetings is the wrong response.
David - let's bury the hatchet. You are making excellent points and especially after your last response, I believe we are not that far apart. I agree that Trump tends to be vulgar, Like many other Republicans I did not like all he did and said and I often cringed. But, as a farmer once responded to that same question posed by a Time Magazine reporter, "I don't like everything my wife says either, but I still love her". I have since become an NPP voter.
Dirk, you said, “let's bury the hatchet.” Agreed. I decided to engage with you because you asked some reasonable questions during the climate change debate following Matt Grocott’s column. I tired a long time ago of speaking with people whose responses frequently refer to Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and who fashion insults about single letter typos. You are right that the FBI has had unsavory moments in the past. The problem currently is that fact checking every accusation coming from all sides is a full time job that I just don’t have time for, so it is hard to know which “facts” to believe. The stridency of some sources tends to undermine their credibility.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(31) comments
I initially thought the reporter was the victim of a crazy hoax but the mayor of Pacifica is actually named Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck! Anyway, I hope a solution can be found that allows more people to participate in local government. It already feels like elected officials don't want to hear from the public, I hope that a few bad apples don't end up limiting our ability to do this even further.
One might argue that this is a First Amendment issue if these are merely random individual crackpots behaving in this manner.
However, if there is an organized effort to disrupt public business, this might very well be an important issue for the FBI to investigate. This matter should be referred to them. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have the technical means to make that determination even if localities like San Carlos do not. Just the threat of FBI involvement might be enough to make individual cranks go away.
This offensive behavior should not, however, result in a decision to completely cut off online public participation in government meetings. That might be exactly the objective that these people are seeking to accomplish!
Having said this, Team Trump has already cast its usual aspersions on the FBI (as they do to anyone who opposes them - read the Amazon reviews of Cassidy Hutchison’s #1 best seller “Enough”), and they will undoubtedly protest that this is further “politicization” of that agency. Tough! Free speech is not completely without limits.
Great comment, and I agree this had to have been an organized effort. I was on the zoom meeting for San Mateo and I never felt it was a First Amendment issue but just hate speech, pure and simple, that was horrifying to hear over and over. I hope the FBI does get involved.
Wow David - talking about opening Pandora's box. Do you want the FBI which already send heavily armed members to arrest a peaceful abortion clinic protester in front of his wife and children? Those members who infiltrated and possibly incited the mob on January 6? FBI members who planted themselves under order of the Director in Roman Catholic churches to spy on subversive homilies? Yes, we need to keep them busy. You must really long for a police state. Who is the crackpot here?
You mean the same FBI that had agent provocateurs instigating the whole fake "J6 Insurrection"? Free speech IS without limits though....it says so in the Constitution. That is why it is the FIRST Amendment. There is a reason it is so general - so Pharisees like you dont try to twist the fine print. Weaponization of government is Bolshevism. I suggest you read some Antony Sutton and maybe get your knowledge to an acceptable level for public discourse....it might just be a better use of your time than reading Cassidy Hutchinsons book. But call that a shot in the dark.
MAGA!!!! No insurrection!!! Just some tourists visiting the capital...LOL.
Err - FFGig - I must have missed your comments during the onslaught of the BLM rioters when whole city blocks burned down and hundreds were even killed or injured. Could you refresh my memory? Were they members of the MALA cult? Thank you.
Which “capital” FFGig? Sacramento?
Speeches that incite violence are against the law, so, sorry, but there are limits on speech. If any law enforcement agency acts illegally, the legal system can take action against them too. I realize that this second sentence is little comfort to MAGA Republicans who believe that the entire system is conspiring against them, so unfortunately that is where the impasse remains. Further discussion will not budge either side. However, most reasonable Americans simply do not want to have democratic processes, like those mentioned in the article above, disrupted by paranoid extremists spouting Nazi-like hate speech. If one were to walk into a court of law and disrupt the proceedings, one would be charged with contempt of court. I do not know all of the legal niceties involved with public meetings, but it sure seems to me that there must, or at least should be, similar legal means to stop this completely out-of-line behavior without ending all online meeting participation. I assume local attorneys can address this much better than I.
David - the MAGA Republican is a term concocted by the left and it serves nothing but dividing us even further. Many on the left, just recently your Queen Hillary, use far more provoking language but you, like all liberals, just ignore that. Republicans are not a monolithic bunch and have more guts than the lock-step, programmed leftists who frequent these LTE pages. Do you ever wonder why there does not appear to be any dissent on the Democrat side of the aisle? Is that really democratic or are they just lazy and are paid to be kept quiet?
Dirk - when I use the term MAGA Republicans, it refers to Republicans who support former president Trump as opposed to Republicans like Liz Cheney, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, etc., who oppose him.
The Democrats are not as monolithic as you imply, but that is off the topic. The topic is preventing the disruption of local government meetings due to hate speech.
How do you suggest we stop people from misbehaving in the local government meetings as mentioned in the article above?? I would not be surprised if many if not all of these people misbehaving fall into the MAGA Republican category, particularly when Trump himself makes statements about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country” recently in a National Pulse interview. When the leader also refers to certain countries as “sh—hole countries,” is it any surprise that brainless followers imitate his horrible example???
If you don’t like my suggestion of getting the FBI involved, how do you propose to solve this problem??? Or do you think that it is acceptable behavior???
The Republican party is a clown show...BTW, violence of any type cannot be tolerated. Over 10,000 protestors during the 2020 riots were arrested and charged...most for low-level offenses such as obstructing roadways, failure to disperse. A little over 3% of the demonstrations that summer involved property damage or vandalism. Attempting to overturn an election by attacking the U.S. Capital and threatening lawmakers, I'm guessing, is a tad more serious than blocking a roadway, right Dirk?
Are you kidding me? Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Republicans? That is the old party that I just resigned from. Do you know anything about Liz Cheney, as to how she managed to get her Dad to become VP? If you don't. we are done talking. The Republican Party is doomed if it adheres to the old school. I sense a complete misunderstanding or appreciation of where the nation is moving and it is without the established political parties. Many Republicans do not like Trump as a person but they do like his agenda. I am one of them. Actually, I liked Obama as a person but could not agree with his agenda. Do you even fathom the difference? Why would RFK Jr even being discussed? it is a signal, David!
Dirk, I guess that you don’t have an answer to my question on the topic of the main article above. Your vitriol above comes across as nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the main question which you completely ignored.
Mr. Kristofferson, you mean the FBI that did such a bang up job pushing the Russian Collusion Delusion? The FBI that denied Hunter Biden’s laptop was real? You mean the FBI that ignores the Biden Crime Family and treasonous Biden’s activities in Ukraine? If you want to talk about offensive behavior, I’d say the FBI is worse than the “merely random individual crackpots behaving in this manner” you speak of.
And who is this Cassidy Hutchison person of whom you speak? Perhaps you decided to ignore the “n” the same way Ms. Hutchinson ignores the truth. Ms. Hutchinson has raised the art of hearsay. She bases her truths on hearsay from hearsay. Of course that might be exactly the objective she’s pushing, making money off easily swayed folks infected with TDS.
Sorry, Terence. I am speaking with Dirk here. Have a great day!
Your apology is accepted, Mr. Kristofferson. I forgive you for not wanting to engage since our last “discussion” didn’t work out so well for you. I'm still awaiting answers but I'll wait for you to finish up with the inimitable Mr. van Ulden. Have a blessed day.
OK, Terrence, I will give you the time that you deserve today. Please read those last six words carefully.
Your perception that "our last "discussion" didn't work out well for you" is *your* perception. From my viewpoint, when I finally decided to engage with you on the science around climate change, you quickly changed the topic, saying only "assume climate change is true" and then moved on to complaining about climate change hypocrites and numerous other grievances that you have. The only reason that I didn't respond to those points is because you quite regularly can not stay on topic. As soon as it looks like you might have to concede a point to the opposing side, you have a great tendency to divert the conversation to yet another grievance. Consequently, instead of ever coming to an agreement, both sides simply engage in religious warfare without end. That is the only reason that I stopped replying to you, NOT because your debating skills are so refined and logical. I could have answered you but it would have only generated another round of different complaints without conclusion. I have little desire to engage in that kind of "conversation."
You might notice above that Dirk and I were able to arrive at some common ground because he is not a "true believer" always spouting phrases like "our great President Trump, ""Biden Crime Family," and other right wing catch phrases. Ray Fowler is also a very reasonable and knowledgeable person who contributes to these pages from a right-of-center viewpoint. Try emulating some of their give-and-take and perhaps you wouldn't always be complaining about people "ghosting" you.
I am next going to make one other reply above about Cassidy Hutchinson's book "Enough" as unfortunately the software interface here tends to quickly fragment any lengthy discussion. I kindly suggest you look for it above soon.
Not sure if this comment will be placed above or below the response that I made a few minutes ago, so sorry for any confusion created by my reference to its position in that previous response.
Cassidy Hutchinson was obviously Mark Meadow's chief assistant. When you say "She bases her truths on hearsay from hearsay.", I assume that you are referring to the incident where Trump allegedly had an altercation with his Secret Service driver about going to the Capitol. It is hard to respond when you routinely speak in blanket references like "bases her truths" and "treasonous Biden's activities."
Cassidy states quite clearly in her book who she heard that information from. She also acknowledges that other people countered her on that point, but she stands by her report.
In my opinion she clearly stated in the book the incidents that she witnessed directly in many cases and acknowledged those that she didn't. The cumulative effect of her direct observations is damning enough in my opinion, but because it refers to the entire book, this statement is also a generalization. The only way for a person to evaluate it is to read the book themselves.
Just like you constantly refer to people on the Left ignoring Hunter Biden's laptop, I believe that people on the Right are doing the same to this book. If you look at the reviews on Amazon, they are overwhelming positive but the Trump contingent is trying to flood the 1 star review space with one or two line comments questioning her veracity, not dissimilar to your comments above.
I suggest that you read the book if you haven't, Terrence. It might overturn your worldview ( but I am not going to hold my breath until this happens [beam]).
The list of insiders critical of the Trump regime continues to grow and the usual response from Team Trump is to engage in character assassination. That might work if Trump came across as a saint and his complaints about his critics were believable, but I think that this dam is going to break against him at some point in the not too distant future.
I woke up this morning and what did I see? Responses from Mr. Kristofferrson staring back at me. What an honor! Now on to the good stuff…
Your perception that “our last discussion” worked out well for you is “your” perception. So here we are… You seem to purposefully be missing the point - regardless of how you interpret climate, whether Mother Nature or man-made, you think the point is to convince us about something which folks much smarter than us have been trying to do for centuries, with no conclusions. I’ve conceded that for the purposes of argument, we can assume your worldview of the climate is true. You’d rather focus on being aggrieved that I’ve assumed your worldview. Let it go and move on. Again, let’s assume global warming is real. Who cares? If nobody is doing anything then all this hysterical screeching about attempting to explain man-made climate change means bupkis. And to follow par for your course, you ignore simple questions about the FBI.
As for your Cassidy Hutchinson book, didn’t she claim the budget director is a “faithful Mormon” when he is not? If Ms. Hutchinson is willing to lie about the little things, why wouldn’t she lie about the things that matter? I suggest that you read a few Amazon reviews or any reviews you don’t like and ascertain whether there is truth instead of waving your hand at them, likely the same way climate alarmists wave their hand when it comes to doing their part to save the world. If, Mr. Kristofferrson, your standard of “truth” now encompasses hearsay, then you have bigger problems than making feeble attempts to insult or shame me.
You might not have noticed that the inimitable community members you’ve cited, Mr. van Ulden and Mr. Fowler, among others, have been “ghosted” more than a few times, perhaps even more so than me. They have their style and I have mine, just as you have yours. I accept you for who you are. Sometimes I wish you wouldn’t obsess over the inconsequential nits and make mountains out of molehills but you gotta be you. But seriously, trying to claim your worldview of climate change is the only one? Please. Get past it and focus on what really matters, the response, or lack thereof, in addressing it. And handing get-out-of-jail-free cards to everyone? I guess in 50 more years you can again give us your worldview about Mother Nature while China and India and other countries are well on their way to being developed, with the help of fossil fuels. You know. The same fossil fuels that made America. BTW, as I said before, if you hid your Trump Derangement Syndrome hysterics, folks might take you seriously. Have a blessed day.
Dear Mr. “Y,”
With statements like “handing get-out-of-jail-free cards to everyone” your hyperbole misrepresents once again what I said in a previous discussion.
Perhaps at some future time when I see that you begin to engage in an earnest conversation with others - one that shows both give and take rather than being primarily a monologue aimed at scoring debating points and exchanging insults - then I will reassess engaging with you.
Till then, adiós. 👻 <�— ghost emoji in case SMDJ software can’t process it!
So, Mr. Kristofferson, you paint yourself into a corner and are now looking to escape… Let’s recap, since you’re back in the nitpicking phase… in comments from “My beef with Terry” you wrote, “Both China and India continue to burn coal because they need to for economic reasons as does the United States and the European Union.” If not a get out of jail free card then what? Since there will always be economic reasons to burn coal, or any fossil fuel. Countries can use that excuse as well as individuals. “Green” electricity isn’t green and it costs more green to pay for supposed “green” power.
Then, in an aside to “whether some people in the climate science community may be acting hypocritically” you throw out this gem: “I am sure that many government officials have very tight schedules and are dealing with multiple international crises. The only way they can handle these issues is by taking the fastest way from place to place because many of them sincerely think that time is running out.” Really, haven’t these folks heard of Zoom, or Google Meet, Slack, Microsoft Teams, and many, many more videoconferencing apps? Much faster to appear in places while saving travel time. If not a get out of jail free card excusing folks from burning fossil fuels to their hearts’ desires because they have places to go and people to see, then what? All we see are hypocrites are telling everyone else to save the world while they’re releasing tons of carbon into the air (likely more than any of us will ever contribute in our lifetime).
Please explain how my statements are hyperbole, if you can. Meanwhile, looking forward to your future time. A hint: if you want to engage in earnest conversation with others, you may want to set an example of the decorum you’d like to see, which you can begin by refraining from repeating easily debunked fake news and lies about our great President Trump. Otherwise, readers will know you prioritize emotion over logic and facts.
David - this is a long string but it compels me to respond to your severely biased impression of what MAGA is all about. First of all, there is no evidence whatever that these obscene calls were made by MAGA types. That is simply your assumption and cannot be corroborated. It is not the FBI's role to start even more censorship in this Country. Your reference to Trump's initial speech about the type of migrants is flawed. Apparently you live in a cocoon with modern sanitary provisions. If you had stepped even over our border you would find the type of toilet that Trump referred to as quite common, certainly in the Far East and Africa. The caliber of the migrants that he mentioned has now been confirmed by our very own Border Patrol. Many hundreds have been apprehended who committed the crimes that Trump let us know about. You live with rose colored glasses. The reality of these hordes is that among them are many undesirables and we are having difficulty keeping them out. All speech is protected by the First Amendment and I can't help it that you are so easily offended by strong words. Would you rather have strong words or let our current President continue to bring in folks who you would not have in your household? Common decency will eventually shut those up who make inappropriate comments that are made by many who have no particular political affiliation. Not everything is hate speech. Hard to believe perhaps, but MAGA types do not conform with Hillary's description. She is more dangerous than Trump will ever be.
You are seriously defending TFG's comment defining other countries as "s***hole countries"? Wow.
Many folks who come from these countries find these single hole sanitary provisions normal. That does not make them a lesser human being. Again, you are showing your profound ignorance. I saw these even in Paris, France not long ago.
He was not describing the design of the toilets, he was characterizing the country with an adjective.
Thanks, Mr. van Ulden, for attempting to educate Mr. Kristofferson from his narrow and biased worldview. The bigger question is why Mr. Kristofferson is not a proponent of making America great again. Perhaps this isn’t too surprising since Mr. Kristofferson willfully ignores treasonous Biden, the Biden Crime Family, and Biden’s America Last policies. If only Mr. Kristofferson could stop himself from injecting Trump Derangement Syndrome hysterics into his comments, some folks might take him seriously. As it is now, we know his responses are based more on emotion than logic. BTW, Mr. Kristofferson, why did you ghost me after our last “discussion” regarding climate alarmism and your get out of jail free cards for folks burning fossil fuels to their hearts’ desires while hypocritically lecturing us on limiting carbon emissions?
P.S. - Dirk, you might be surprised that I was not excited by Hillary’s candidacy. However, I did vote for her versus Trump because it was clear to me from the beginning that Trump was a horrible influence on American politics. I am not a person who believes that one’s personal character does not matter in politics. Sadly that belief is mainstream now on both sides. Isn’t it obvious that Hillary never incited a mob to march on the Capitol?? Blaming that on the FBI as another person commented is laughable. I just can’t accept your final comment above about Hillary being more dangerous than Trump as anything other than hyperbole.
You might also be surprised that I wish that Biden would stand aside and make way for a different candidate. I preferred Amy Klobuchar in the 2020 Democratic race.
I also agree that the southern border situation is dangerously out of control, but the solution is not to engage in attacks on Mexico as some on the Republican side are advocating.
You are also right that there are dangerous people coming across our southern border who we should be keeping out, but there are also many people fleeing a horrendous dictatorship in Venezuela. In the past Republicans would have been sympathetic to that before they started pandering to white supremacist groups (all under Trump). Congress needs to stop it’s infighting and get to work on immigration reform.
That is my brief response to your other points which were completely off the topic of the article at hand. Any of these sentences can easily balloon up into another protracted discussion of course, but that is not what the focus is on in this article.
Hopefully at the very least you and I can agree that Zoom-bombing public meetings is wrong and that the solution to this problem is not to cut off public comments. You don’t like my FBI suggestion, and I think your “common decency” solution will not solve the problem either.
Dirk states, "Common decency will eventually shut those up who make inappropriate comments that are made by many who have no particular political affiliation. Not everything is hate speech. Hard to believe perhaps, but MAGA types do not conform with Hillary's description."
Thank you, Dirk. It took three attempts along with more asides about the meaning of MAGA and pit toilets (I am a former Peace Corps volunteer), but I guess that this is the closest I will come to getting your answer to the main question here (although I think that you really "stepped into the sh__hole" with other parts of your response).
Sorry, but I disagree with your quote above. This is essentially akin to a conservative saying that criminals will stop committing crimes when they start developing pangs of guilt. I can imagine the crowd reaction to that statement during a Republican presidential debate [beam] !! I think it is also reasonably certain that people making those kind of comments would turn out to be Trump supporters even if many Trump supporters might disapprove of that behavior. It is true, however, that there are people on the left who engage in similar offensive extremist language and behavior.
People who engage in the type of behavior described in the article will not care about "common decency" and will continue to offend. The fact that Trump models this for them in public using words like "sh__hole" does not help. Since when did this become "presidential" behavior??
George Washington would be aghast if he could see what Trump was doing and even more aghast that a sizable portion of the country now accepts this behavior using excuses that "they do not like the man but love his policies" !!! This is essentially accepting that the goal justifies any means.
Trump"s "poisoning the blood" comment in his National Pulse interview is just the latest example. He will, of course, reply that he "misspoke" or this was an unfortunate aside, etc., etc., etc., but the guy is a master manipulator of the media, and I am sure drops those "offhand comments" knowing full well who the message is being sent to and conscious of its effect. If this is the best that the Republican party can come up with to represent our country, it will not survive in the long run unless it resorts to illegal means to seize power.......
I also never proposed that the FBI engage in censorship. I suggested that the FBI be called to investigate if there is an organized effort to disrupt local government meetings. As I said, if one disrupts the proceedings of a courtroom by outbursts of profanity and hate speech, one can be charged with contempt of court and removed. If an organized group, instead of random individuals, is attempting to do this around the Bay Area, it seems to me that this is something that law enforcement should look into. Shutting down all online public comment at government meetings is the wrong response.
David - let's bury the hatchet. You are making excellent points and especially after your last response, I believe we are not that far apart. I agree that Trump tends to be vulgar, Like many other Republicans I did not like all he did and said and I often cringed. But, as a farmer once responded to that same question posed by a Time Magazine reporter, "I don't like everything my wife says either, but I still love her". I have since become an NPP voter.
Dirk, you said, “let's bury the hatchet.” Agreed. I decided to engage with you because you asked some reasonable questions during the climate change debate following Matt Grocott’s column. I tired a long time ago of speaking with people whose responses frequently refer to Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and who fashion insults about single letter typos. You are right that the FBI has had unsavory moments in the past. The problem currently is that fact checking every accusation coming from all sides is a full time job that I just don’t have time for, so it is hard to know which “facts” to believe. The stridency of some sources tends to undermine their credibility.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.