The City Council’s Ordinance Committee on Tuesday at 6 p.m. will take up a resolution advanced by South End councilor Jorge Cruz “for the City Attorney to draft an ordinance Prohibiting Targeted Residential Picketing within 300 Feet of the Property Line of Certain Residential Dwellings.”
“I’m not condemning the beliefs of protesters,” says Cruz. “I’ve protested as well. But don’t take to a person’s house where things can get rowdy and out of hand.”
The genesis of Cruz’s call came in November following a clash between police and protesters outside City Council President Aidee Nieves’ house that was averted when a half-dozen officers ignored the taunts and walked away.
Placard-carrying activists, one with a bullhorn, in support of Black Lives Matter demanded defunding of police at a protest outside Nieves’ Park Street home. Signs were placed on the fence fronting her home. Nieves was not apparently home.
Cruz says something must be done to stem potential destruction, citing Trump-incited followers who attacked the U.S. Capitol with calls to hang Vice President Mike Pence.
It’s not without precedent, he asserts, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision see here that placed restrictions on targeted picketing in a Wisconsin town.
This meeting will be conducted by Zoom/Teleconference. The public may listen by calling the following conference line and then entering the conference code:
Dial-in Number#: (929) 436-2866
Meeting ID#: 984 964 381
https://youtu.be/puwoUKhZQbg
I have said it before. There are several difference between the case cite by Mr Cruz and the proposed City Ordinance
1) The case before the Supreme Court involved regular citizens practicing medicine. This involves duly elected city officials.
2) By City Ordinance these elected City Officials receive a stipend in which normal household expenses may be reimbursed to the council members without extensive documentation and without explanation. Thereby household expenses are reimbursed by the city in the course of doing business ergo they are office expenses and not solely private residences.
3) Since the City Council does not physically meet in chambers anymore, this is the only way the public can redress their local officials. If the council passes this amendment then citizens can not directly communicate with their local city representatives.
Just to mention a few of the most egregious reasons why it should be dropped immediately. Otherwise the council members may end up losing a lot more than they will gain.
.Sidewalks are city(public) property.You can’t make it illegal to protest on them…Having said this,in this city,I would imagine Joe would be in favor of limiting people’s abilty to protest decisions he..err the Council make.Therefore I can see a scenario where Anastasi forms an “opinion” that it’s ok to go against the 1st Amendment in Bridgeport. If this is the case and Joe wants this to pass,the Council will pass it for him as usual.
So where should we protest Mr. Cruz, at the Columbus monolith at Seaside Park?
Or how about 300 feet south of the Fayerweather Island Light house?
A person’s right to air grievances without fear of retribution or censorship is fundamental to democracy in the United States. Free expression of one’s beliefs is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which generally protects free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.. Protesting — the time-honored practice of publicly speaking out …
By FindLaw Staff | Reviewed by Kellie Pantekoek, Esq. | Last updated June 03, 2020
Poor City Council President Aidee Nieves, she doesn’t like protesters in front of her home so City Councilman Jorge Cruz wants a special law wriiten to protect her. Cruz is so out of touch with reality when Cruz says something must be done to stem potential destruction, citing Trump-incited followers who attacked the U.S. Capitol with calls to hang Vice President Mike Pence, this guy has really lost it with that dumb ass comment.
*** I understand the concept of councilman’s Cruz’s ordinance for limiting protest away from a person’s personal property or home in general. However, there is no local city ordinance that can stop or prohibit the free exercise, thereof the freedom of speech or the right of of the people to “peaceably” assemble to petition a grievance for a redress. In short layman’s terms, to oppress your 1st amendment rights! Good try but protest sometimes go with the job of being a city council member’s board president, no? ***