Many local government meetings such as City Councils, School Boards and the like tend to have well controlled meetings so someone doesn’t upend the proceedings. The KC police board is government too.

But the Supreme Court may just ended that practice or at least thrown it into confusion.

Supreme Court rulings contain details that would be deemed as legal truths all must follow.

The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “mis- guided, or even hurtful.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 15–19, 24–25.

Think about a public meeting

They can’t ban public attendance, public meetings must be open to the public. They can’t change the format to disallow public comment. That’s a government demand on speech.

Muting someone would be a demand you not speak. Government using the police to remove someone was just banned. That’s compelling when and where you can speak.

Controlling topics is clearly out under the above standard. You can speak on anything.

It gets better, they can’t have a separate comment period under that standard. Think about it, if they tell you when you can speak that’s a demand. Under this standard the public must have an opportunity to comment throughout a meeting.

Time limits is compelling speech, it’s the government telling you that you only have the freedom of speech for so long, then you need to shut up. In Congress the filibuster is a form of free speech. The same should be true locally where a member of the public has a right to speak as long as they wish In a government meeting.

They would need to end the meeting to end someone speaking. To not complete all tasks. It’s now possible to disrupt government by speaking during one.

####################

Grafitti could include a religious message or symbol. Government can’t arrest or fine for the practice of graffiti on public buildings. They can’t remove it since that’s controlling speech. Can’t call it vandalism, that’s trying to ban speech through another method.

They can‘t remove people who setup tents during a protest on public property. All you need to do is post your message on the outside of the tent. The government can’t demand you not speak through a message on a tent.

Youth congregating on the plaza could be a religious meeting where people are speaking their personal truth to each other. Laws banning groups in certain places, the police breaking up groups. That’s government control on speech. We all have the right to congregate as we wish, where we wish, as long as it’s not private property. Private property vandalism would not be ok, but they can only arrest or disperse individuals committing a crime against others, congregating would no longer be illegal.

This ruling can have huge consequences. All because of one line saying government can’t make demands around speech