Opinion: Which way on time limit?
It’s interesting that a proposal to limit to three minutes the amount of time a citizen would be allotted for comment at Carmel City Council meetings died in a deadlocked 3-3 vote last week. We view it as noteworthy, because we see both sides of the issue. For the experienced public speaker, three minutes should be well more than enough to voice an opinion. For the lesser accomplished in that venue, it probably isn’t enough. (Had councilor Ron Carter and Mayor Jim Brainard been present, the measure would have passed. Each was out of town at the time.) Perhaps, if the time limit eventually is instituted, it will cause the uninitiated among public speakers to sharpen their game, and that wouldn’t be an awful thing. Whichever way this goes in the future, we’re with outbound councilor Luci Snyder, who said it’s part of the council’s job “to listen to the people who pay their taxes to support this government.” But for how long? We have no answer, but we do not believe a time limit would be a threat to one’s freedom-of-speech rights and expectations. Express your thoughts at email@example.com.
* * *
We’re not taking up the cause of Donald Trump (R-Billions) here, but what we believe he was saying when he fired off incendiary comments about closing the United States to Muslims was this: Until this broken nation with broken systems can get its collective broken brain repaired, were are not nearly as secure as the government would have us believe. We should be demanding that our leaders do whatever it takes to achieve that. Instead, we’re too busy lining up at midnight for doorbusters. It’s just pathetic.