Hmmmm…
In Tacoma Park, one of the most woke and wonderful communities in already insufferably progressive Maryland, Mayor Talisha Searcy ordered the crowd at a recent city council meeting not to applaud the various statements made by citizens as the council sought comments on a study regarding the city’s rent stabilization laws.
“I just want to make sure I’m learning about how to facilitate civility within a community,” the mayor said as she ordered the audience to “refrain from cheering, booing, signs, all that good stuff” as well as applauding. Many in the crowd were not pleased. When a spectator shouted that prohibiting clapping is “undemocratic,” the mayor delivered the stunning theory that “clapping for some and not all is not democratic” and that “we have to allow for people to feel safe to say what they feel.”
Okay, she’s an idiot, an ethics dunce, an expired hippie, and the most obnoxious species of progressive squish. These are the kinds of people,who demand that nobody at a meeting ever condemn even the most brain-dead idea because it might hurt the feelings of the dim bulb who offered it. Searcy is the kind of person who loves the passive-aggressive “I hear you” that usually means, “but I’m going to forget you ever said anything so stupid.”
There is no defending her claim that “clapping for some and not all” is undemocratic. However, I am interested in whether it is ever ethical to ban positive reactions, politely expressed.
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.