Editorial: Let’s protect free speech while preventing hate speech

We must not become so hardened to cynical hate speech strategy that we normalize it

This editorial is the opinion of Gilroy Life

The issue of virtual public participation in city council meetings is a sensitive one. A growing number of “Zoom-bombers” have used the online platform to promote bigotry and hate in local government forums.

After a discussion by a member of the Gilroy Open Government Commission at the Nov. 6 city council meeting, the elected officials will look into considering reinstating virtual public comments at “hybrid meetings.” Gilroy Life supports the use of technology in expanding public access to democracy and encouraging free speech. Unfortunately, extremists abuse public meetings to spew racist, antisemitic, and homophobic hate speech. The Gilroy councilmembers should be cautious in implementing the return of virtual comments by the public.

During the Oct. 4 Morgan Hill City Council meeting, four men used the virtual public comment period to spread vile ideology. This incident follows a disturbing nationwide trend of “Zoom-bombing” by bigots seeking to disrupt civic proceedings. City Manager Christina Turner and City Attorney Don Larkin made the decision to end virtual public comment. The hateful rhetoric puts vulnerable groups at risk and creates a hostile work environment antithetical to meaningful public discourse.

City governments must balance free speech with safety. As long as extremists weaponize public meetings, remote comments cannot continue. And often, these platforms make it easy for people who do not reside in Gilroy to call into a meeting from the comfort of their homes that might be anywhere. This eats up valuable time that might be better spent dealing with local matters rather than agendas that don’t impact Gilroy’s citizens.

Free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. But the First Amendment does not protect harassment, threats, or incitement against marginalized communities. As South Valley residents, we must condemn hate while supporting the rights of all residents to engage safely in civic life. If we work together, we can maintain an open forum for debate without compromising on compassion. The presumption must be that most commenters sincerely aim to contribute relevant, thoughtful remarks. Their right to address elected leaders should be protected. Any restrictions should narrowly target those who weaponize meetings to attack marginalized groups.

The hateful rhetoric creates an intimidating environment that deters respectful debate and civic participation. It is mind-boggling that some choose to spend time disrupting low-profile local meetings with hate speech. They likely wouldn’t exhibit such brazen bigotry if not hidden behind a screen. While they have free speech rights, that does not entitle them to a platform.

As outlined in a recent report by the Anti-Defamation League, groups like the antisemitic Goyim Defense League are encouraging followers to flood local government forums with racist, homophobic and antisemitic rhetoric. When divisive voices monopolize comment periods spreading hate and lies, they deprive residents of opportunities to address community needs. Their goal is chaos and publicity, not progress.

We must not become so hardened to this cynical strategy that we normalize it as part of the democratic process. If left unchecked, the hijacking of public meetings will continue escalating, further eroding civility and trust in institutions.

Municipalities must take reasonable steps to filter out harassment without compromising transparency. For instance, requiring commenters to provide their real names and addresses could deter the most egregious abuses. Moderators should be empowered to mute or remove speakers who cross lines. Of course, any restrictions must be content-neutral and narrowly applied to those clearly disrupting meetings. Well-meaning people can disagree passionately on policy issues. This is not a partisan matter. If good people refrain from participation, the extremists win. We must stand united against hate and in support of civic discourse.

An ideal solution should not be banning online comments altogether. Doing so limits public engagement at a time when virtual access enables more people to be involved. We urge the city to explore long-term solutions that preserve public access while filtering out hate speech. Other cities use screening measures to block abusive commenters from meetings. Cities like Mill Valley use these measures to block abusive speakers while allowing constructive input.

Elected officials have a moral and legal obligation to ensure civic proceedings remain focused, substantive and safe. The hijacking of public comments to normalize bigotry and falsehoods corrodes inclusive debate and drives good-faith participants away.

With care, cities can filter out those who abuse public forums while preserving an open exchange of ideas. Protecting democratic participation and inclusive debate should remain the priority. We must not allow the intolerant few to silence the rational majority.