He was making a point. The ordinance they passed violates an amendment of the bill of rights, great way to load up a head line 😂

His "rules" of the meeting are unconstitutional. Thus mayor and everyone else on the board need fired and sued for violating their rights!

We just filed our $5 million lawsuit against the city.

The title of the post is wrong. Who disrupted what? I'd urge the counsel to listen and follow the law.

For those who dont know let me explain. The mayor and the police chief were using the city budget that goes towards thing like city maintenance emergency funds for natural disasters for personal use. The chief bought a 1247$ custom fitted suit using the city budget and when the man seen in the video who was cursing was just about to provide the facts that they were stealing from there city and there city people that when the mayor knowing he would be caught forced him out of the building and the cops on body cam arrested him for free speech under there corrupt police chief orders. That chief is no longer on the board as a police chief and he filed for another city chief position and they turned him down too.

How can you "disrupt" a constitutional right? Oh yeah, the city council did.

The mayors rules do not supersede the constitution, thats the part the mayor and the jackass they interviewed after the story fail to understand. Just because the mayor doesnt like someone's speech or tone or word choice doesnt mean they can just kick out or threaten to arrest someone. It's protected speech, plain and simple. If he cant handle being talked to in that manner than leave the position.

You can't disrupt when it's your turn to speak

Angry? Mans speaking the facts.

Unconstitutional rules DO NOT APPLY!

They are being sued at this time. They literally violated Grisham's rights on the spot and the officer may have lost qualified immunity! The mayor did violate their rights and thus, the taxpayer will need to foot the bill!

Call it CJ! Is it time to rally?

The title to the video shows bias in this news station. The citizen isn't disrupting when IT IS HIS TURN TO SPEAK. I hope you struggle with advertisements.

The best part of this….the lawyer went back in and said “You kept telling me to sue you, so here’s your lawsuits” as he begins leaving the room.

The News is biased?

Those people were standing against corrupt officials who have never done anything but attempt to make their own lives better while sitting in a public servants seat. This news channel is beyond disgusting if they are going to label that as disruption. KRIS 6 another news that I will never listen or pay any attention to.

City council members only have the privilege of a peaceful meeting in the event that their administration of the town has not sufficiently angered the population to revoke that peace.

"Caught On Camera! Citizen's Constitutional Rights Blatantly Violated By Corrupt City Council Members" You should fix your title - these guys have an absolutely airtight case and your title seems pretty biased and defamatory.

City council rules of "decorum" do not take precedence over the Constitution! 1st Amendment guarantees free speech and multiple lawsuits have determined that criticizing or cursing at public officials, even at a city council meeting, is allowed! Their rules are unconstitutional!

Aransas pass city council is a joke I hope they get sued

Very poor reporting. How about including why this so called expert thinks the rules were violated. Do you just expect people to take his word for it? The city is going to be paying out huge sums of money to settle the lawsuits from this debacle.

So even if the council can place restrictions, the first guy may have violated them, but the lawyer did not.

They forget they work for US!! You know, “WE THE PEOPLE”!!! We all need to stand up and take our country BACK!

Policy and Rules do not trump LAWS!!!

Stand with me!

You can't havd purity laws apply to laws of the land like (all women must wear a burka) for example. You can do that but it only apply if everyone goes to say the same church or mosque then you can have purity laws. A random Atheist can't just start making purity laws for town council in a diversity, divided town.

There's a press conference today regarding this, let's see if you show up and report this one honestly. We will all be watching.

Of course the rest of the video isn't shown where they all get served too.

Disrupts?

Need to be a lawsuit against these council members and they need to be removed from office now too

It's funny how the media cut this video like sushi to fit the "bad citizen" narrative

And the scrawl on the barn wall now reads "Some animals are MORE equal"

I hope this news station knows they're on the wrong side of history.

They love their rules when they get called out. The Supreme Court has ruled that people can use whatever non-threatening language towards public officials.

i find it funny that the version where he comes back and serves all of them with lawsuits is not here.

They didn't show the update when he came back and told them they were getting sue and served them with lawsuit papers.

He’s not just q citizen he’s also a attorney who served them all lawsuits I wish I can find that part

its CLEAR in the law that any citizen can use any language they want as long as they aren't being disruptive. they can even make threats. That what happens when you are a politician. If you are a GOOD politician then you wouldn't have to be worried about stuff like this because you know that person has no backing. if you are actually caught doing shady business while being a politician then you deserve every word coming to you.

Is he? How ya enjoying the lawsuit he hit ya’s with?🤣🤣🤣

Come on people ... after the last 4 years ... how much more you going to take?

They violated his rights and broke the law. Very simple.

Are y'all going to report on them getting sued? Or do your actual journalistic duty and report the truth? Like the Supreme Court has ruled on this, and cursing can't be banned. I will help you. "The Supreme Court case that established that cursing or offensive language cannot be banned is Cohen v. California (1971). In this case, Paul Robert Cohen was convicted for wearing a jacket with the words "F*** the Draft" in a courthouse. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cohen, stating that the First Amendment protects the expression of offensive words and that the government cannot prohibit the public display of profanity simply because it is offensive. Justice John Marshall Harlan II, writing for the majority, emphasized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric" and that the government cannot make principled distinctions in this area of expression. This case set a significant precedent for the protection of free speech, even when it includes offensive language."

Shame on that city for what it did to this man!

And now they getting sued. Lets see who was out of Line.

That guy they asked is stupid its freedom of speach and the guy sued the council. Theres even a short that shows him at another meeting and he has them all served with lawsuits

PS where was you guys at this date when the address to public and you all got notified allergies

You can defend yourself in court anyway you want to even if your defense is a clown show.

New york times v. sullivan, there is clear case study and law outlined in the 1st amendment. The supreme court ruled on this in the late 1960's!

Y'all should seriously change this headline.

BRO WE NEED THE NEW VIDEO! HE CAME BACK AND SERVED THEM LAWSUITS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MEETING!

What are "the rules that applicable"? Do you really think they override the constitution and established case law?

He was allotted time, he was not interrupting anything

The title 🤣 how much they pay yall 🐱 's

What is this lawyer name? I need a lawyer please

0:39 The Undertaker😂😂😂😂

Ah, so the news is protecting them. Got it.

This attorney is so stupid of course they violated they’re rights you cant make rules that go against the bill of rights

Aransas Pass purposely violated their 1A rights to criticize their Gov, but retaliating w/ false charges just provided basis for another lawsuit that the tax payer must pay for in the end. More concerning is the obvious slant by the reporting in this story. Did the editor/author even try to do basic research to give alternative view points, allowing the reader/viewer to objectively make their own judgement? You know, the purpose of an independent press?

He came back and sued them

CONSTITUTION ! Simple choice: Constitutional patriot. Or UN/WEF Smart city prisoner ( coming real soon if ppl dont wake)

Don't comply we are the ones in charge not them

A lot of people in here quoting the constitution without actually seeming to know what the constitution allows. Freedom of speech does not mean you can hijack a city council meeting to yell insults at people, that's what twitter is for.

Why are you journalists investigating this corruption?

angry? my guy was logical

Didnt he serve yall with lawsuits? Where is that video? Include all the footage, not what supports your story.

Who is this joker at the end of the video?

You’re “rules” do not supersede the constitution.

Where can i learn more? For being a news channel you really dont give any information. Whats your sources? Who invests in you. What where the names of the chief of police? The judge? The citizen? When is the court date

Arrest this cop and mayor

City council or city criminals.

Defamation... Lol okay. That's just a way to clarify any criticism as a crime

Ole’ Bill needs to re “think” what he’s talking about bc he is wrong! 1:06

Well the law suit the guy won because he was threatened with arrest proves that they violated his rights but okay 👍

disrupts? what, he gave a lecture on law(actually hilarious those fools got played soo badly) now the tyrants who cant follow the law are sued. second video he comes back to serve papers lol

There used to be public decency laws. He can speak on most any topic if they dont violate those laws, but his language in an official meeting would violate most of those laws.

I am all for free speech. However, there are better ways to express your thoughts than by using profanity. No one wins when it gets to this point in an open forum. The gentleman has valid points, however, a profanity laced rant undermines the value of the argument.

Jason for Mayor❤❤

The news station needs to speak to a different attorney you cannot change a right into a privilege statues codes rules regulations must must must comply with the Constitution New station these are your rights as well learn something

Let’s go!!!

6k views 72 likes…from the comments looks people know how to hear a story, and aren’t putting up with your BS headline 🤡

Way to clip out the most important parts of supreme courts cases the gentleman provided. This is why city council got a nice envelope with prices they have to pay back for infringing rights because their feeling got hurt. following the same guidelines and using my free speech, you suck as a news station for not providing unbiased news. Hope your rating plummet☺️

Shame on you channel 6 for taking those tyrants side.

I know I am about to step in on the other side of where nearly everyone who wants to speak up on this thread stands, but speech when used to incite violence does not have the protections of the first amendment, this has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, i.e. Brandenburg vs Ohio. If dude wants to speak his 3 minutes on how bad, terrible, incompetent, immoral or greedy this Mayor or City Council may be, he is perfectly welcome to. But when he starts using language that is used to incite or provoke violence, voice threats and cause fear, he is stepping outside the protection of the first amendment. One can express their disapproval, or disagreement with the city council bringing up all of one’s criticisms and concerns without threats, and using speech to provoke or incite violence or cause fear. The First Gentleman may or may not be accustomed to using language to incite and provoke, we were only showed a quick snippet and small amount of what he said but he seemed very comfortable saying it, and if he will use it here with these members of the community, if it is okay for him to use this type of speech here at a council meeting with other members of the community. Is that his right to become unruly and provoke people into fighting or fear when he feels someone took his Parking spot? When a customer service person at Home Depot won’t accept a return because he has the improper receipt? When a neighbor has a dog that barks in the morning?

He was in his rights, downvoting this DISHONEST video

That attorney obviously isn't a constitutional law attorney. He's 100% wrong.

Disrupting? You mean he was trying to notify the citizens and the board to the fact that the chief had misappropriated city funds for his own gain? It's funny you leave that part out of your headline. You didn't mention how the city was taking steps to cover up that crime either. This guy was threatened with arrest while accusing the police chief of breaking the law and had evidence to back it up. And you lead with him being a disruption to the meeting. Stop calling yourself news. You are a cog in the propaganda machine at this point. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Im just curious what grand end do you see at the end of that tunnel exactly? Has there ever been a happy story of government over reach, propaganda news, or corrupt political leaders? Or are you just so short-sighted by personal gain that the world can burn around you, so long as you sit upon some imaginary throne of success. In what way does misrepresentation of what this was benefit anyone other than the corruption that we see in this meeting?

This man for president

I love this content. More please

Constitutional law says we have the very right to talk to our government officials in any manner we so choose the 1st amendment gives us the very right to use whatever words we so choose just as long as they are not words of a threatening manner