[
{
"name": "Real 1 Player (r2) - Inline",
"component": "38482494",
"insertPoint": "2/3",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "9"
}
]
After having his mic cut off during public comment earlier this year, and amid discussions by Cleveland City Council about further restrictions to public comment, Ward 3 resident Chris Martin this week filed a federal lawsuit against council and council president Blaine Griffin accusing them of violating his First Amendment rights.
Martin is represented by the First Amendment Clinic at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
“I’m bringing this lawsuit because members of the public should be able to speak on issues they care about without fear of being silenced because the council's presiding officer disapproves of their viewpoint,” Martin said.
At the September meeting, Martin listed the names of members and the amounts of money they received from the Council Leadership Fund, a political action committee controlled by Griffin which has financed some members’ reelection campaigns and was used this year to fight Issue 38. Griffin interrupted the public comment and told Martin he was violating council’s policy. When Martin continued, his microphone was cut off.
The suit alleges that, not only did this violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments, council’s public comment procedures are unconstitutional.
“Censoring Mr. Martin while he was engaged in core political speech was an affront to Mr. Martin and a serious violation of his rights under the First Amendment — and really to all of our rights to hear what Mr. Martin hoped to say,” said Andy Geronimo, director of the First Amendment Clinic.
Members of the clinic met with city of Cleveland chief legal director Mark Griffin, chief assistant law director Stephanie Melnyk, assistant law director Patricia Aston and Cleveland City Council special counsel Rachel Scalish to discuss First Amendment concerns in October and, according to Geronimo, the city’s attorneys agreed the procedures had issues and wouldn’t enforce the policies as written.
Last month, chief of communications Joan Mazzolini told Scene that, “Council agrees that the policy may raise some First Amendment concerns.”
The clinic shared a detailed letter explaining the many ways it alleges council's public comment policies violate the First Amendment, like banning reasonably sized signs, barring speakers from addressing individuals council members and prohibiting “indecent or discriminatory” language.
Since the clinic met with city attorneys, council held a caucus meeting and shared a draft for discussion of potential changes to its procedures. While the proposed public comment policies would address a couple of the concerns listed in the clinic’s letter — by allowing speakers to address council members directly, electioneer, endorse or wear stuff that “promotes any candidate, campaign, issue product or service" — it would also limit speakers to talking about only “one item currently under consideration by council.”
If that became a council policy, speakers could only address matters currently being discussed by the body or committees or legislation that has been introduced in or is pending before council or committees. Still, the draft is not official and council would need to vote to change its rules.
Despite the seemingly promising meeting with city attorneys, Martin says council hasn’t addressed his free speech concerns. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, demands a trial by jury.
“I had hoped that council would take the opportunity of realizing that their rules are unconstitutional to do the right thing and expand folks’ opportunity to address them. It’s unfortunately become clear that expanding the opportunities to address council is not the goal of city council, certainly not the goal of council President Griffin,” said Martin.
Public comment only recently was reintroduced as a forum in council meetings and was implemented following a successful campaign led by citizens. Under council rules, ten people who pre-register to speak can talk for three minutes each. If one of the registered speakers fails to show up, there’s no waitlist or way for another person in attendance to take their spot.
“Cleveland City Council, in 2021, deigned to allow just ten folks to speak to them each week, when the former council president decided, as a political ploy, that instituting a public comment period would help his mayoral campaign, yet the body's viewpoint restrictive rules and regulations have been unconstitutional from the start.” Martin said.
The suit seeks to declare the censorship of Martin’s public comment unconstitutional, declare the public comment policy facially unconstitutional, enjoin council and Griffin from enforcing the public comment policy and award Martin damages.
“Government officials cannot silence speech simply because it criticizes them or offends their sensibilities, and Council’s lack of meaningful action on this matter unfortunately made it necessary for Mr. Martin to proceed with a lawsuit to vindicate and enforce his First Amendment rights,” said Geronimo.
A representative for city council declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.
Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed
Martin is represented by the First Amendment Clinic at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
“I’m bringing this lawsuit because members of the public should be able to speak on issues they care about without fear of being silenced because the council's presiding officer disapproves of their viewpoint,” Martin said.
At the September meeting, Martin listed the names of members and the amounts of money they received from the Council Leadership Fund, a political action committee controlled by Griffin which has financed some members’ reelection campaigns and was used this year to fight Issue 38. Griffin interrupted the public comment and told Martin he was violating council’s policy. When Martin continued, his microphone was cut off.
The suit alleges that, not only did this violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments, council’s public comment procedures are unconstitutional.
“Censoring Mr. Martin while he was engaged in core political speech was an affront to Mr. Martin and a serious violation of his rights under the First Amendment — and really to all of our rights to hear what Mr. Martin hoped to say,” said Andy Geronimo, director of the First Amendment Clinic.
Members of the clinic met with city of Cleveland chief legal director Mark Griffin, chief assistant law director Stephanie Melnyk, assistant law director Patricia Aston and Cleveland City Council special counsel Rachel Scalish to discuss First Amendment concerns in October and, according to Geronimo, the city’s attorneys agreed the procedures had issues and wouldn’t enforce the policies as written.
Last month, chief of communications Joan Mazzolini told Scene that, “Council agrees that the policy may raise some First Amendment concerns.”
The clinic shared a detailed letter explaining the many ways it alleges council's public comment policies violate the First Amendment, like banning reasonably sized signs, barring speakers from addressing individuals council members and prohibiting “indecent or discriminatory” language.
Since the clinic met with city attorneys, council held a caucus meeting and shared a draft for discussion of potential changes to its procedures. While the proposed public comment policies would address a couple of the concerns listed in the clinic’s letter — by allowing speakers to address council members directly, electioneer, endorse or wear stuff that “promotes any candidate, campaign, issue product or service" — it would also limit speakers to talking about only “one item currently under consideration by council.”
If that became a council policy, speakers could only address matters currently being discussed by the body or committees or legislation that has been introduced in or is pending before council or committees. Still, the draft is not official and council would need to vote to change its rules.
Despite the seemingly promising meeting with city attorneys, Martin says council hasn’t addressed his free speech concerns. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, demands a trial by jury.
“I had hoped that council would take the opportunity of realizing that their rules are unconstitutional to do the right thing and expand folks’ opportunity to address them. It’s unfortunately become clear that expanding the opportunities to address council is not the goal of city council, certainly not the goal of council President Griffin,” said Martin.
Public comment only recently was reintroduced as a forum in council meetings and was implemented following a successful campaign led by citizens. Under council rules, ten people who pre-register to speak can talk for three minutes each. If one of the registered speakers fails to show up, there’s no waitlist or way for another person in attendance to take their spot.
“Cleveland City Council, in 2021, deigned to allow just ten folks to speak to them each week, when the former council president decided, as a political ploy, that instituting a public comment period would help his mayoral campaign, yet the body's viewpoint restrictive rules and regulations have been unconstitutional from the start.” Martin said.
The suit seeks to declare the censorship of Martin’s public comment unconstitutional, declare the public comment policy facially unconstitutional, enjoin council and Griffin from enforcing the public comment policy and award Martin damages.
“Government officials cannot silence speech simply because it criticizes them or offends their sensibilities, and Council’s lack of meaningful action on this matter unfortunately made it necessary for Mr. Martin to proceed with a lawsuit to vindicate and enforce his First Amendment rights,” said Geronimo.
A representative for city council declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.
Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed
