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.