To the Editor: Says council curbed free speech

The citizens of Ridgecrest maybe surprised to hear that their city council does not believe in the people’s freedom of speech (1st Amendment) or their compliance city ordinance. This was affirmed by the silence of the entire city council regarding the mayor’s unconstitutional directions denying the freedom of speech of those attending last Wednesday’s city council meeting, when all the council members allowed the violation to continue after they were informed of the violation. I have notified the city council numerous times in the past of the violation with supporting legal opinions. Representatives who remained silent and allowed the violation to continue are more dangerous than the actor, because their silence promotes the people’s belief that it is constitutional directive.

At the council meeting, the council affirmed its belief that it has the power to choose how you can use your freedom of speech at a public meeting, declaring that the people cannot applaud (clap) in support of public or council comments, telling the citizens they must only raise their hands in support. This in violation freedom of speech per both the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court, see IN RE KAY 1 Cal.3d 930 (1970), https://www.leagle.com/decision/19709311cal3d9301855.

I tried to address this violation and inform the council again that its actions were in violation of the 1st Amendment under point of order, but was silenced, with the council refusing to allow a point of order to be heard regarding the freedom of speech violation, an act that violated city ordinance requiring the council to operate its meetings under Robert’s Rules of Order.

At the next opportunity during the meeting, when public comment was allowed, I informed council again of the freedom of speech violation. Even after being fully informed of the freedom of speech violation the entire council, through their inaction, deliberately choose to continue denying the people their freedom of speech rights, violating their oath of office to uphold and support our Constitution.

We the citizens of Ridgecrest have very serious problem when our elected leaders act like tyrants rather than patriots who support the people inherent rights. This also presents some other very serious questions, what additional restrictions on our freedom of speech/expression will they choose to restrict next? Maybe they will require anyone with an opposing opinion to submit their opinions in writing, so they can simply throw it in the trash or maybe they will tell you not to continue because you are offending someone with a different opinion or maybe they will declare anyone who opposes a position being discussed is a micro aggression and it will not be tolerated.

These are representatives who took and oath to uphold and support our Constitution, which places a primary duty on them to protect the peoples inherent rights. The council has apparently chosen the progressive (soviet socialist) agenda, that our Constitution is out dated and of no value, and the people should be subjects of the government. Apparently they no longer believe in our republic, a government which gets all of its power from the people and the government is a servant of the people.

Freedom of Speech is the key to preserving our liberty and freedom and our republic which was created with a primary objective to preserve and protect the peoples liberty and freedom.

Ronald L. Porter

We the citizens of Ridgecrest have very serious problem when our elected leaders act like tyrants rather than patriots who support the people’s inherent rights. This also presents some other very serious questions. What additional restrictions on our freedom of speech/expression will they choose to restrict next? Maybe they will require anyone with an opposing opinion to submit their opinions in writing, so they can simply throw it in the trash or maybe they will tell you not to continue because you are offending someone with a different opinion or maybe they will declare that anyone who opposes a position being discussed is a micro aggression and will not be tolerated.

These are representatives who took an oath to uphold and support our Constitution, which places a primary duty on them to protect the people’s inherent rights. The council has apparently chosen the progressive (Soviet Socialist) agenda, that our Constitution is outdated and of no value, and that people should be subjects of the government. Apparently they no longer believe in our republic, a government which gets all of its power from the people, and the government is a servant of the people.

Freedom of speech is the key to preserving our liberty and freedom and our republic, which was created with a primary objective to preserve and protect the people’s liberty and freedom.

Ronald L. Porter

Story First Published: 2018-03-30