I find it incredulous that the same ones that want to circumvent others' rights and freedoms are so quick to sue and whine when they get called out on their BS. So quick to want to hide behind the constitution while only be so happy to violate others constitutional rights. Hypocrites
Mike, you’re right to highlight this contradiction: While Councilman Langevin strongly defends his own right to speak, he also supported limits on how others can address the council. By backing policies to stop livestreaming public comments and citing privacy or regulatory issues, Langevin helped reduce the transparency and accessibility of public participation, even as many residents voiced concern. It’s a critical point about whose speech is really being protected - and at whose expense.
Specific votes and actions:
Seconded and supported revisions to prohibit livestreaming the Public Comments part of council meetings
Argued these changes were necessary to prevent FCC/HIPAA violations, but maintained citizens could still petition the council
Stated that providing a "taxpayer funded platform" for any topic isn't the government's job
Voted for these revisions despite strong public opposition from residents who rely on livestreams for access
Thanks Thomas I did not realize that they were also claiming public comments violate Hippa which is Health Insurance accountability and portability act Which in fact is defined as Protected Health Information. The Privacy Rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (PHI)."12
What in the world that would have to do with citizen comments seems like a hell of a stretch to me.
Thanks Tom. Informative documentation of the case law. The City Attorney made a similar compelling case (when pressed by the Mayor) based on Court cases at the Oct 16 meeting. I'd sum it up this way, its always a up-hill battle when you try to sue the Government. As a taxpayer, who lives in this City with a large influx of growth (that the City seems unable to monetize in lieu of property tax increases) I would think its in everybody's interest to settle this case, not go to the expense of litigating it. In his comments on this subject at the Oct 16th meeting, Councilman Langevin implied he would accept a Censure if he could speak at Council Reports. IMO it seems like that was the opportunity to compromise and prevent litigation. Going forward the voters can determine the future of the estranged Councilman. Another thing to keep in mind here, the Councilman is a easy figure to take a dim view of. If we are going to determine that the high bar of election nullification has been met, what happens next time if a quorum of the Council pursues nullifying another Council member on the same grounds? For example I recall a few years ago the Mayor submitted a Veteran for special recognition, turns out the individual had been dishonorably discharged. (I defended the Mayor btw) The media and many residents found this controversial. Some of the same arguments could be made here, it could be argued the Mayor put the full faith and credit of the City in a perceived bad light. (I don't recall a censure being discussed) There are many examples here, like the previous Mayor, some dubious accusations against Councilman Johnson, a Federal investigation into City practices etc. In those cases the voters dealt with the Council . The last time a councilman was removed, it was clear a crime had been committed. If we start muting Councilman for making jack-wagons of themselves, IMO we will all pay for it and its only a matter of time before your candidate gets gored.
In my view, the city should move to dismiss or seek summary judgment, because the case lacks legal merit and is rooted more in feelings than law. Councilman Langevin knowingly pushed the boundaries, and he should be held accountable under Florida Statutes, established case law, and city policies. The legal precedent is very clear: Palm Bay’s council is well within its authority to censure and take these actions.
I find it incredulous that the same ones that want to circumvent others' rights and freedoms are so quick to sue and whine when they get called out on their BS. So quick to want to hide behind the constitution while only be so happy to violate others constitutional rights. Hypocrites
Mike, you’re right to highlight this contradiction: While Councilman Langevin strongly defends his own right to speak, he also supported limits on how others can address the council. By backing policies to stop livestreaming public comments and citing privacy or regulatory issues, Langevin helped reduce the transparency and accessibility of public participation, even as many residents voiced concern. It’s a critical point about whose speech is really being protected - and at whose expense.
Specific votes and actions:
Seconded and supported revisions to prohibit livestreaming the Public Comments part of council meetings
Argued these changes were necessary to prevent FCC/HIPAA violations, but maintained citizens could still petition the council
Stated that providing a "taxpayer funded platform" for any topic isn't the government's job
Voted for these revisions despite strong public opposition from residents who rely on livestreams for access
Thanks for raising it.
Thanks Thomas I did not realize that they were also claiming public comments violate Hippa which is Health Insurance accountability and portability act Which in fact is defined as Protected Health Information. The Privacy Rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (PHI)."12
What in the world that would have to do with citizen comments seems like a hell of a stretch to me.
Thanks Tom. Informative documentation of the case law. The City Attorney made a similar compelling case (when pressed by the Mayor) based on Court cases at the Oct 16 meeting. I'd sum it up this way, its always a up-hill battle when you try to sue the Government. As a taxpayer, who lives in this City with a large influx of growth (that the City seems unable to monetize in lieu of property tax increases) I would think its in everybody's interest to settle this case, not go to the expense of litigating it. In his comments on this subject at the Oct 16th meeting, Councilman Langevin implied he would accept a Censure if he could speak at Council Reports. IMO it seems like that was the opportunity to compromise and prevent litigation. Going forward the voters can determine the future of the estranged Councilman. Another thing to keep in mind here, the Councilman is a easy figure to take a dim view of. If we are going to determine that the high bar of election nullification has been met, what happens next time if a quorum of the Council pursues nullifying another Council member on the same grounds? For example I recall a few years ago the Mayor submitted a Veteran for special recognition, turns out the individual had been dishonorably discharged. (I defended the Mayor btw) The media and many residents found this controversial. Some of the same arguments could be made here, it could be argued the Mayor put the full faith and credit of the City in a perceived bad light. (I don't recall a censure being discussed) There are many examples here, like the previous Mayor, some dubious accusations against Councilman Johnson, a Federal investigation into City practices etc. In those cases the voters dealt with the Council . The last time a councilman was removed, it was clear a crime had been committed. If we start muting Councilman for making jack-wagons of themselves, IMO we will all pay for it and its only a matter of time before your candidate gets gored.
Tom, I appreciate your comment.
In my view, the city should move to dismiss or seek summary judgment, because the case lacks legal merit and is rooted more in feelings than law. Councilman Langevin knowingly pushed the boundaries, and he should be held accountable under Florida Statutes, established case law, and city policies. The legal precedent is very clear: Palm Bay’s council is well within its authority to censure and take these actions.
Thanks for weighing in.