Shut up but keep talking: A guide to public meetings

Public meetings across the nation have become increasingly contentious, and some have erupted into chaos. Elected officials have faced threats, citizens have been removed for criticizing government, and disputes over First Amendment rights have placed police officers in difficult positions. This is advice for everyone because preserving good government requires more than speaking up. It requires knowing when, how and why to shut up but keep talking. When citizens and elected officials have conflicting expectations, everyone can lose. Citizens may view police enforcement as censorship. Officials may view police inaction as a failure to maintain order. Meanwhile, police officers can lose community trust, and the elected officials political capital. New Jersey's Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq., establishes the public's right to attend government meetings and observe public business. The law is also clear that attendees may not speak indefinitely or disrupt proceedings. Governing bodies may adopt reasonable, content-neutral rules, including time limits and procedures for public comment. Advice for elected officials When public meetings grow heated, a vague rule or a split-second decision can transform political disagreement into a constitutional dispute. Municipal attorneys should be prepared to provide real-time guidance to elected officials and police officers, clarifying when meeting rules and bylaws may be enforced and when citizen dissent is constitutionally protected. Police should never be weaponized as a 'sergeant at arms' against citizens. Clear, written and content-neutral rules can preserve order. Rules governing decorum and civility should support inclusive deliberation, not silence critics, protect incumbents or criminalize speech simply because it is rude, embarrassing or politically inconvenient. Officials should ensure that: Rules apply equally to supporters and opponents. Restrictions are content-neutral. Procedural remedies are used before law enforcement intervention whenever possible. Criticism of government is not mistaken for disruption of government. Advice for citizens Public criticism is an essential part of representative government, even when it is uncomfortable or confrontational. If a meeting chair orders you to stop speaking or leave, compliance may be the wisest immediate course of action. Refusing such an order can transform a dispute over meeting procedure into an arrest for disorderly conduct or another offense. If your public-comment period is cut short or you believe you are being treated unfairly: Comply with the chair's order. State your objection on the record. For example: 'I object to viewpoint discrimination.' Submit written comments to the clerk. Document what occurred. Pursue legal or administrative remedies afterward. When police become involved, comply with their lawful instructions. After complying with an order from the meeting chair or a police officer, seek legal or administrative review rather than escalating the incident during the meeting. Citizens should also be aware that in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the existence of probable cause for an arrest does not necessarily bar a First Amendment retaliation claim against a municipality. Advice for law enforcement Officers should recognize that some meeting attendees may seek attention, provoke a response or create content for social media. Others may hope to bolster a future civil claim. Regardless of motive, officers should enforce the law, not political preferences or meeting rules. When assigned to public meetings, officers should act as neutral guardians of public safety and constitutional rights, not as instruments of political censorship. Before serving in a meeting-security role, officers should review departmental public-meeting standard operating procedures. These policies should address: Public comment. Removal of attendees. Arrest procedures. Threat assessments. Physical disruptions. Requests from meeting chairs. Officers should independently assess whether conduct is unlawful and whether there is reasonable suspicion, probable cause or a genuine safety risk. When a meeting chair requests the removal of a citizen, officers should ask clarifying questions such as: 'Has this person actually disrupted the meeting?' Officers should then rely on their own observations and training to determine whether legal action is justified. A meeting chair's characterization of a person as 'disorderly' is not a substitute for an independent legal assessment or compliance with established police training and constitutional standards. Citizens should shut up but keep talking by speaking boldly, persistently and lawfully. Democracy depends on knowing when to speak, when to listen, when to act and when to remain silent. Protecting constitutional rights and preserving public order are not competing goals. When each participant understands their role, both can be achieved. Dr. Chapman is a professor of criminal justice and constitutional law at the City University of New York, a police researcher, a recognized federal court expert and a retired law enforcement professional.