Thread by @shayshinecastle

Next: Should council allow speakers, attending remotely, during public hearings/open comment use video when they give testimony?

Quick few slides on this: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

We've talked about this before. TL;DR is that there are First Amendment concerns, bc if someone does something obscene during a live video, staff would want to censor it, but bc it's a government, it's problematic. Or could be.

For this reason, in the past council has always said no to video testimony.

Reminder: Public will be allowed back into meetings starting May 17 — two weeks from now.

You can also continue to participate remotely, via Zoom. Only audio is allowed for that currently.

"We had at least one unfortunate situation in a council-hosted event," Sarah Huntley says. "People sharing video of inappropriate things."

I think there was porn (briefly) at last year's virtual Raucous Caucus. Some people just can't help themselves.

Bc we're now going hybrid, though, people who testify in person WILL be seen on the stream... bc they're in person. So that creates some inherent difference, Huntley says. Staff still recommending audio only for virtual participation.

That "gives us the best ability to prevent and control those unfortunate incidents," Huntley says.

Joseph: What's the security reason we don't allow video on Zoom?
Huntley: We had an incident v early on in a public engagement event, and we had some folks come in, not from the city of Boulder, and they were displaying child pornography, pornographic images.

Huntley: "That put staff moderating that meeting in the difficult position of whether or not to allow that person to stay in the meeting. We have to be very mindful of the First Amendment. Situations that put staff in that content arbiter role are very challenging."

Joseph: I'm on a dif board, at the state level. We've never had any issues, but I understand the concern. Is there no way to control the background or video?
Huntley: Some gov't are allowing video. I truly believe that in 99% of these situations, ppl are showing up in good faith.

"It's that 1% chance, which we've already experienced," that causes the issue, Huntley said. "It's not really something we can control."

Brockett: Do we have additional considerations bc we're broadcasting on TV?
Huntley: We've received conflicting information on that.

Speer: "My only concern with the Zoom option is COVID is still going on. Folks are still dying, being hospitalized. For folks who are sensitive or immune compromised, is there any way we can have an option for video for them as well?"

Huntley: I appreciate the equity concern. The challenge is that carving out exceptions requires us to make some decisions that could step over the line.

Speer: It feels v similar to having a wheelchair accessible door. What's the dif?

Tate: When we're talking about the First Amendment, it's hard when we start carving out dif rules for some people. I'm not clear how the ADA will interact with the First Amendment hear; I'll look into that.

But generally, Tate says, I'm uncomfortable carving out dif rules for dif groups of people.

Friend: Yates and I were in that meeting that was Zoom-bombed. It was very graphic, and I'm still pretty chastened by that.

Brockett: It's v difficult to make a spot decision on what's allowed by the First Amendment and what isn't. I don't want to put staff in that position, or be in that position myself.

Zoom testimony is as impactful, to me, audio only, Brockett says. I view this as giving options for people on how they want to participate.

That is the abrupt end of that. I think Huntley says they'll be developing some options and coming back, but it sounds like no video for now...?

We shall see.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!