NEWS

 

Town of Matthews amends public comment policy in response to hateful zoom bombing incident, new public comment policy similar to Davidson’s 

On February 26, 2024, the Town of Matthews experienced nearly 30 minutes of hurtful and disruptive hate speech from several individuals who made public comments using the online Zoom platform to speak remotely while shielding their true identities. Matthews is not alone among towns experiencing these opportunistic attacks.

Municipalities in multiple states are updating public comment policies to thwart coordinated attacks by zoom bombers who mask their identity, sign up to make public comments, then flood the public meeting with hate speech.

In 2023 and continuing in 2024, scores of local board meetings were targeted by callers who masked their identity and engaged in disruptive hate speech. The speakers took advantage of Zoom policies implemented by cities and towns during Covid to allow public comments to be made online. In attempting to provide new avenues of access during lockdowns and in-person meeting restrictions, many towns and cities allowed Zoom participation with few limits and scant verification of identity.

Public comment policies created during Covid have now created an opportunity for unidentified callers to target town meetings anywhere. Targets tend to be municipalities that continue to allow Zoom comments — particularly towns that do not limit subject matter, have longer time limits for speaking, and allow callers to speak with their cameras off. Given access to the meeting, zoom bombers espouse hateful ideologies, typically views that are antisemitic, homophobic, racist, sexist, and conspiratorial. Because of the prevalence of these occurrences, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) began tracking the incidents. In December 2023 the ADL reported, “Since our initial report, the ADL Center on Extremism has recorded more than 140 incidents nationwide in which public forums were disrupted by antisemitic speech and other trolling and harassment efforts.” In August, 2023, the ADL published a “Toolkit for Responding to Extremist Disruptions at Public Meetings” for town and city council members.

After initial shock and anger, many towns that have been targeted with hate speech are responding by amending their public comment policies to try to prevent further disruptive incidents.

On February 27, the day after the zoom-bombing incident, the Town of Matthews issued a written statement to members of the public who were exposed to the disturbing comments. John Higdon, the mayor of Matthews, condemned the “hateful and offensive words used” while supporting their protection under the First Amendment. Mayor Higdon added that the hateful rhetoric was “completely at odds with the welcoming, including community we wish to have.”

In a special meeting on March 5, the Matthews board of commissioners met to discuss methods for public participation in meetings. At the meeting, the Matthews board of commissioners voted unanimously to make the following three changes to the public comment policy:

• immediately suspend the use of Zoom as a platform for public comment
• immediately suspend written comments as a means of public comment
• require public comment speakers to provide their name and address for the record.

In justifying the change, Mayor Higdon stated that “Matthews operated for the previous 141 years without Zoom and without a written public comment option, and during this time no First Amendment right was violated.”

In January 2022, the Town of Davidson board of commissioners voted to update our town’s public comment policy. The policy was updated once in-person meetings renewed after the loosening of COVID restrictions. Perhaps somewhat presciently, Davidson’s board of commissioners decided against allowing Zoom comments and written public comments. Davidson’s policy states that, “Speakers will address the board of commissioners from the podium and special accommodations will be made for persons with a disability with appropriate advanced notice to the Town Clerk.”

While Davidson’s policy does not allow written comments to be submitted for public comment, the policy does allow pre-recorded voicemail comments. If the town receives a voicemail message by the 5:00 p.m. deadline on the day of the meeting, the voicemail message will be played in the order received by the Town Clerk. Speakers who leave voicemail messages “must identify their name.” The voicemail option allowed in Davidson is not available in Cornelius, Huntersville, or in Matthews’ new policy.

Matthews’s policy allows speakers to comment for five minutes on any topic, while Davidson’s policy allows three minutes to comment on any topic; however, topics must be “germane to the Town of Davidson.” Davidson’s policy further restricts public comments for which a “public hearing is being held on the same regular meeting agenda.”

The final change to the Town of Matthews public comment policy was the requirement that speakers must identify themselves by name and address for the record. Davidson’s policy requires live speakers from the podium to “identify themselves for the record.” This presumably means that the speaker should at a minimum state their name but does not require them to provide an address or other contact information. Public officials understand that by requiring speakers to appear and represent their views in person, they are far less likely to engage in hate speech.

Zoom-bombing of public meetings is just one of the opportunistic methods hate groups and extremists have used to sew discord efficiently and anonymously. Eliminating one avenue does not guarantee that they will scurry away permanently, and if they show up live to a podium near you with a name and an address to verify their identity, the First Amendment will almost certainly allow them to air their hurtful ideologies in public. In that case, more speech may be the best antidote. According to the ACLU, “silencing a bigot accomplishes nothing except turning them into a martyr for the principle of free expression. The better approach, and the one more consistent with our constitutional tradition, is to respond to ideas we hate with the ideals we cherish.”