The mayor’s attempt at enforcing her idea of democracy was backed up by the threat of punishment. After there were more objections to her edict, she said: “I’m not going to argue. If I hear any more clapping or disruption from the crowd, I will have to unfortunately have you all removed.”
Democracy dies in expressed opinions?
Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment expert at the Freedom Forum, a nonprofit that educates the public about free speech, said government bodies can have “neutrally applicable rules to ensure that meetings continue smoothly,” but that banning polite applause might encroach on First Amendment rights. “Really, is clapping all that disruptive?” he asked. “Is it reasonable to say they can’t even clap for their neighbors?”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
“Can banning applause at a public meeting be ethically justified as encouraging civility?”
After all, you can’t applaud during trials. I think trials are distinguishable however, Applause is potentially prejudicial. A city counsel meeting with open commentary is a democratic exercise. I believe that banning applause comes too close to censorship for my ethics alarms.
The Washington Post, in its coverage of the controversy, reveals that UNITE, the nonprofit dedicated to reducing political conflict, wants local governments to adopt its “Dignity Index” to guide public discourse. Oh no, not that again! I wrote about it here. I am not a fan.
Tami Pyfer, the index’s creator. says applause for a particular viewpoint is “problematic because it may make people with less-than-popular opinions shy away from expressing them in public.” How about irresponsible opinions, uninformed opinions, and bigoted opinions?
“It can be intimidating when you have created, unintentionally, an us-versus-them culture,” said Pyfer. Oh, bullhockey. If you want to participate in a debate, you should know what you are talking about, and be able to support your position. Well-reasoned, articulate and defensible opinions that resonate with a group should be allowed to receive a response that reveals those opinions’ quality and persuasiveness.
I must add that for a Democrat to condemn positive responses to a public speaker while her party behaved like hooligans during the President’s State of the Union Address seems, shall I say, passing strange.
Ethics Alarms 
When one of my groups used Robert’s Rules of Order (more or less), I noticed that meetings ran long because people would give speeches agreeing with what someone else just said. I tried printing out little cards saying “ditto” or “anti-ditto” that people could hold up, but ultimately settled on the simpler approach having people snap their fingers to indicate agreement. (If someone disagreed, they could give a speech, and everyone who agreed with them could snap.) It was much easier to keep meetings on track from then on.
I can’t remember if you ever posted on this or not, but the Democratic Socialist National Convention tried the “no applause” as one among several measures in the vein of “being accomodating” back in 2019. The video of the event is quite amusing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NdE9CjkvTY&t=7s
That video was hilarious.
Places where applause is frowned upon:
Court, like you said;
Church (generally)
High School graduations with 400+ students (but then there is always that one family who thinks they are being cute by defying the rule)
Live Theater (kind of an etiquette thing, as much as anything else)
By contrast, State of the Union speeches annoy me because there seems to be standing ovations every two sentences. It adds to a partisan feel to an event that should be non-partisan. And, of course the partisan reactions in favor of the President leads to partisan reactions against the President. Perhaps the Speaker of the House should say both expressions are a breach of decorum, but polite golf-clapping is permitted.
So, I can envision a scenario where a public meeting would bar any type of interruption (I was at a public meeting where a client’s liquor license was subject to revocation. That was akin to a Court hearing, but I suspect applause or booing would be frowned upon.
Having said that, this incident is not one I can envision as appropriate. Her rationale was not order, or time efficiency; her rationale was derived from the third-grade rule that you don’t bring treats to class unless you bring enough for everyone (only involving claps).
-Jut
I was at a county commissioner meeting once that banned all questions.
That would be standard at any public meeting. There is a public comment period, and anyone can talk for their allotted time at the public comment section. Outside that, the public are observers, not participants.
It is one thing to have rules to keep a business meeting moving. This was a public comment session. The idea is to let the public comment and let the government know the opinions of the public. As long as the applause or boos weren’t shouting people down, they are public comment. They are first amendment expression. Kevin Goldberg sounds like a weenie. The stated reason for the applause was not to keep the meeting moving, it was to create a ‘safe space’. I notice that he didn’t comment on whether that was allowed under the first amendment because it isn’t and I be the knows it. This is similar to the city councils that have policies that ban the public from criticizing any public official.
I recall watch “Darkest Hour” where it appears that the British MPs were waving pieces of paper to indicate support for a speech.
Also haven’t they had fisticuffs in Parliament at one time or another? That perhaps would not meet a civility standard.
On the gripping hand, isn’t democracy inherently kind of messy?
That is why the two sides of Parliament are separated by just over 2 swordlengths.