William Matt
It is my pledge to always seek justice on behalf of the City of Lansing. As your neighbor, I will work diligently to find responsible solutions to our challenges, and lead with a vision guided by a hope of an ever-better city.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Free Speech versus Offensive Speech?
Monday night at the City Council meeting Darnell Oldham Sr. displayed a small hangman's noose at the conclusion of his remarks, and tossed it on to the floor when he finished. Today the LSJ picked up the story:
(LINK)
There are some interesting comments already being left on the board after the article. I would encourage you to comment here or at the LSJ.
Part of the article says that Council President Leeman "plans to meet with the city attorney so that they can draw up a letter possibly demanding that Oldham, a black man, cannot attend council sessions for a year. He also might demand that Oldham write or verbalize an apology or attend counseling at his own expense if he wishes to return to council sessions."
A most of you know, Mr. Oldham is a community activist from the Churchill Downs neighborhood. He takes his role in the community very seriously, and he is very outspoken. The protest was based on last weeks meeting when a speaker was ejected and following audience protests by Oldham and John Pollard, they were ejected from the council meeting as well. He claimed that the noose represented a lynching of his free speech rights by Leeman.
As offensive as the noose ploy was, it has certainly generated attention, which was probably the whole point.
When I took the job on City Council, I knew that insults and personal attacks came with the territory. You have to come into this position with some very thick skin. I have been publicly called "the Mayor's Boy" by Mr. Oldham, another racial taunt, and I do my best to ignore this and other insults.
Did the noose go beyond the realm of good taste and proper decorum? Any reasonable person would likely say yes. Does Mr. Oldham have the right to use props to add emphasis to his speeches. Sure. He has displayed pom-poms that glow in the dark (I don't even want to know where he bought those!) when admonishing Cmbr. Kathie Dunbar and alluding to her relationship with the Mayor in the past.
I wish he would have been more sensitive in this particular case, and what he is doing in my mind hurts his own credibility, effectively offending some people to the point that they will not listen to his arguments. He is hurting his case more by this type of heated rhetoric more than he is helping it.
Is that his right in America? Yes.
We provide a forum for people to speak to council. Some people attend every week and insult and attack Council members who they disagree with. That is the way a representative government works. If they have good points, and council doesn't listen, then the people can choose new representation at the next election.
Is banning Mr. Oldham from council for a year appropriate? No. We have more serious and important issues to deal with. If Mr. Oldham wants to embarrass himself every week, then I don't really care. Does Mr. Oldham need counseling? Not my call. I'm not a professional behavior specialist. Most weeks he is restrained. Last week he spoke very calmly and eloquently. He is clearly passionate, and that sometimes is expressed in an offensive nature.
Should we allow speaker's comments toward Jerry Ambrose, the city's finance director? I have no problem with speakers talking to other city officials present at the meeting.
So what to do about this situation? Ignore it. No harm was done. If I am asked, I will not support banning Oldham for a year, counseling, or a public apology. It is his own credibility at stake.
I may not agree with Oldham, but I will defend his right to speak his mind.
(LINK)
There are some interesting comments already being left on the board after the article. I would encourage you to comment here or at the LSJ.
Part of the article says that Council President Leeman "plans to meet with the city attorney so that they can draw up a letter possibly demanding that Oldham, a black man, cannot attend council sessions for a year. He also might demand that Oldham write or verbalize an apology or attend counseling at his own expense if he wishes to return to council sessions."
A most of you know, Mr. Oldham is a community activist from the Churchill Downs neighborhood. He takes his role in the community very seriously, and he is very outspoken. The protest was based on last weeks meeting when a speaker was ejected and following audience protests by Oldham and John Pollard, they were ejected from the council meeting as well. He claimed that the noose represented a lynching of his free speech rights by Leeman.
As offensive as the noose ploy was, it has certainly generated attention, which was probably the whole point.
When I took the job on City Council, I knew that insults and personal attacks came with the territory. You have to come into this position with some very thick skin. I have been publicly called "the Mayor's Boy" by Mr. Oldham, another racial taunt, and I do my best to ignore this and other insults.
Did the noose go beyond the realm of good taste and proper decorum? Any reasonable person would likely say yes. Does Mr. Oldham have the right to use props to add emphasis to his speeches. Sure. He has displayed pom-poms that glow in the dark (I don't even want to know where he bought those!) when admonishing Cmbr. Kathie Dunbar and alluding to her relationship with the Mayor in the past.
I wish he would have been more sensitive in this particular case, and what he is doing in my mind hurts his own credibility, effectively offending some people to the point that they will not listen to his arguments. He is hurting his case more by this type of heated rhetoric more than he is helping it.
Is that his right in America? Yes.
We provide a forum for people to speak to council. Some people attend every week and insult and attack Council members who they disagree with. That is the way a representative government works. If they have good points, and council doesn't listen, then the people can choose new representation at the next election.
Is banning Mr. Oldham from council for a year appropriate? No. We have more serious and important issues to deal with. If Mr. Oldham wants to embarrass himself every week, then I don't really care. Does Mr. Oldham need counseling? Not my call. I'm not a professional behavior specialist. Most weeks he is restrained. Last week he spoke very calmly and eloquently. He is clearly passionate, and that sometimes is expressed in an offensive nature.
Should we allow speaker's comments toward Jerry Ambrose, the city's finance director? I have no problem with speakers talking to other city officials present at the meeting.
So what to do about this situation? Ignore it. No harm was done. If I am asked, I will not support banning Oldham for a year, counseling, or a public apology. It is his own credibility at stake.
I may not agree with Oldham, but I will defend his right to speak his mind.
Labels: 3rd Ward, Bill Matt, Darnell Oldham, lansing city council, LSJ, noose
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
