|
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |
Free-speech lawsuit settled Santa Clara County
NRA member sets the record straight
Santa
Clara County agrees to pay NRA $4,500
Free-speech lawsuit settled
BY TRACEY KAPLAN
Mercury News Staff Writer
At a community meeting last summer, Santa Clara County Supervisor Blanca Alvarado told National Rifle Association representatives who weren't from her district that they couldn't speak for as long as her constituents could.
The local NRA chapter thought that didn't square well with the Constitution. So the group sued in federal court, accusing Alvarado of trampling on its free-speech rights by limiting its comments on proposed gun-control measures.
On Tuesday, the county announced that it has settled the case, agreeing to pay the NRA's $4,500 in legal fees and abide by a policy that gives equal time to opposing viewpoints.
Under the policy, the chair of a community meeting sponsored by the board of supervisors must impose a standard time limit on public comment but may allow speakers from one side more time as long as the other side is given the same amount of time.
``This righted the wrong that occurred at that meeting and will prevent further abuses, 'the NRA attorney said. ``It's a victory for us.''
But County Counsel Ann M. Ravel said the county decided to settle the case only because it would have cost thousands of dollars more to fight it.
``There was nothing inappropriate about what Supervisor Blanca Alvarado did,'' Ravel said.
Alvarado could not be reached for comment.
But a spokeswoman said the supervisor acted with good intentions when she gave her constituents three minutes to comment and imposed a one-minute limit on speakers from outside her district, including NRA members.
``These folks were going from one meeting to another with the intent of intimidating local residents so they wouldn't speak freely about gun violence,'' said Sylvia Gallegos, Alvarado's chief aide. ``It was very disturbing for her to see folks being intimidated. That is a form of censorship itself.''
Gallegos also criticized the NRA for filing a lawsuit.
``They're paranoid, and they're extremists, so they used this minor misstep to punish the county,'' Gallegos said.
``They still haven't learned that when they use litigation, it actually further alienates common folks who want reasonable, sensible gun control.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Contact Tracey Kaplan at (408) 295-3984.
|
|
NRA member sets the record straight
As a plaintiff in the case described in the article ("Santa Clara County agrees to pay NRA $4,500" Sept. 22) I wanted to clarify a few facts. Although I and most of the plaintiffs are NRA members, some are not, and some of those who are not, are from Supervisor Alvarado's district. the attorney was representing us the plaintiffs, not the NRA.
Supervisor Alvarado's spokesperson, Sylvia Gallegos, indicates that NRA members were "intimidating" other members of the community. I did not see this, but perhaps the reporter from the Mercury News who attended could offer an opinion. I believe I could recognize intimidation because county employees did it to me at another county meeting on the VPC plan. Although the meeting was intended to be a brainstorming session I was asked to leave because my ideas were, "not with the program."
Ms. Gallegos also said that, "These
folks were going from one meeting to another." This is certainly
true. I would remind the supervisor that they all get to vote
on proposals and in this country the people get to plead
their case to all elected representatives before the vote. It
is interesting to note that Supervisor Alvarado was the last to
hold a meeting in her district. Therefore she knew there were
no problems at the other meetings.
The other meetings had one or two police in attendance to answer
questions if needed. Supervisor Alvarado had twenty police including
two dog units at her meeting. Who was trying to intimidate who?
During the meeting several of her constituents were also offended by the limiting of time offered to "outsiders" and refused to take advantage of the extra time. In closing I can only conclude that the supervisor (Alvarado) found the facts and arguments presented by the members and friends of the NRA Members' Council persuasive. She voted against the VPC firearms plan.
(name withheld for reasons of personal privacy)
Plaintiff
 |
 |
||
|
|
|
|
 |
|