Appeals Court Finds Costa Mesa City Council Law Barring Disruptions Unconstitutional

Thumbnail image for coyotl-tezcatlipoca_benito-acosta_square.jpg
Benito Acosta, who as a Latino rights activist goes by Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, won a partial victory from the state's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Friday.

The court upheld previous rulings finding Acosta was legally removed from a 2006 Costa Mesa City Council meeting, but the city's law against "disorderly, insolent, or disruptive behavior" at council meetings was deemed unconstitutional.

Acosta, a punk rocker and founding member of Colectivo Tonantizin, was bounced from two Costa Mesa City Council meetings, one after calling then-Mayor Allan Mansoor (now a state assemblyman) "a fucking pig" and another for trying to get the attention of Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project. Acosta was there to oppose Mansoor's proposals to have local police enforce federal immigration laws.

An Orange County Superior Court judge tossed criminal charges that came from Acosta being arrested, and the activist sued the city in federal court on grounds his First Amendment rights were violated when he was escorted out of the council meetings.

A federal jury sided with the city, and so did a split three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September. Mostly. It was fine removing someone being as disruptive as Acosta was being, the majority found, but Judge Richard Tallman in his opinion advocated changing the wording of the city law on disruptions if the council wanted to save it. Judge N. R. Smith wrote in his lone dissent the law cannot be saved and is "unconstitutional in its entirety.

Agreeing to a rehearing, a Ninth Circuit panel on Friday once again legitimized Acosta's removal from the meeting, but this time it sided with Smith's interpretation that the entire Costa Mesa law is unconstitutional.

"Even though invalidation of the entire provision for over breadth is a harsh remedy, it is necessary when we cannot reconcile full protection for First Amendment liberties with the discernable intent of the enacting body," read the latest opinion.

The Orange County Register has reported the city has spent more than $562,000 defending itself and trying to prosecute Acosta for a crime. Perhaps they can take it out of some employee's promised pension.

Email: mcoker@ocweekly.com. Twitter: @MatthewTCoker. Follow OC Weekly on Twitter @ocweekly or on Facebook!


My Voice Nation Help
4 comments
GericaultCM
GericaultCM

Thank God "being insolent" is still legal in Costa Mesa.......Ironically, when the City Council led by Righeimer displays "insolence" towards its residents, they call it "the Art of Leadership". 

NGCoot
NGCoot

The court did not find the CM law unconstitutional - read your own damn article.

MatthewTCoker
MatthewTCoker topcommenter

@NGCootGuess I've got company in getting this wrong; here's something the ACLU just sent: "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a major decision in a case the ACLU of Southern California filed in 2006.  It struck down an ordinance in the city of Costa Mesa that limited free speech at its City Council meetings. The decision said the ordinance was unconstitutional and that members of the public are free to express their thoughts and opinions whether they are critical or laudatory of their city government.  This is a victory for individuals who can now freely and without fear address their local government."

GustavoArellano
GustavoArellano moderator editortopcommenter

@NGCoot ...and stick to rooting for the pedophile factory known as Mater Dei, pendejo!

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Fashion

Loading...