I think the cure to “negative” speech has generally been “more” speech in our country’s history of dealing with these difficult issues.

I suggest we need more people to speak out in some public square to reinforce a cultural norm of respect in the meetings.

My guess is that 95% of city residents disapprove of the method these two gentlemen repeatedly employ in these meetings, including misrepresentation of facts at times.

We also know that when people feel angry and unempowered they resort to these kinds of tactics.

We need to think creatively about creating more civil venues for dialogue, person to person.

We have the “coffee party” movement to push for civility in contrast to the methods (which differs from ideology) used by the “tea party.” Maybe we can learn from that example.

Thanks for asking these important questions.

First, I’m not sure why you need to resort to a pseudonym instead of using your real name. If you want to be taken more seriously, I invite you to come back and share your real name.

Second, freedom of speech comes with responsibility and a moral imperative. Most faith systems, including Christianity, deal with bearing false witness and with the kind of speech you use with other people. They also deal with judging other people.

Our city government is showing the effects of the toxic atmosphere in the city council meetings. It’s the residents who are getting hurt.

If you want to be heard and you want to be respected, then you have to show that to other people.

I agree some tactics are ineffective and don’t serve the intended goal of the speaker but they have that right to be ineffective and self-defeating if that is their choice.

We must be careful we don’t cross a line into censorship in pursuit of decorum and I fear greatly that is exactly what is taking place at these meetings.