NEW VIDEO (08-20-13 EST): Zuma Dogg To Return To Los Angeles City Council Chambers For FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT, SINCE FEDERAL JUDGE RULES=CUSSING/DISRESPECTFUL TALK TOWARD COUNCIL is allowed and must be endured. (Much to Garcetti's dismay, "DIGNITY," is NOT required, nor is, "RESPECT," of which I have NO IDEA how Council could EXPECT any; given their performance and words that come out of their dumb mouths.) ZD looks FOWARD to FREE SPEECH, without having to walk a narrow tightrope with council winds blowing. GET A TASTE in this video! I hope the city doesn't disrespect U.S. law, piss off Zuma Dogg with same old law breaking -- and find themselves in CONTEMPT of FEDERAL COURT. I look forward to full expression, which as an artist, is especially important, to me.
WASN'T COMBATIVE, AT ALL. THIS WILL BE THE TONE/CONTENT I USE, IN UPCOMING MEETINGS, TO NOTIFY PUBLIC, OF THEIR FULL RIGHTS, BASED ON JUDGE'S RULING. If you don't know your rights, it's like not having them, cause they won't be honored. You have to stick up for them, and let them know that YOU know! Here's public comment #1 of THE NEW ERA!
CLICK PLAY AND IT GOES STRAIGHT TO PUBLIC COMMENT/ZD=FIRST SPEAKER.
FEDERAL RULING (AUGUST 07, 2013) - Zuma Dogg vs Los Angeles City Council: "The court finds the discussion of a councilman’s alleged criminal activities is relevant to a discussion of funding that the City intends to give to that councilman’s District. Indeed, this incident is exemplary of why it is unconstitutional to restrict speakers from making personal attacks in City Council meetings; it chills speech critical of elected officials, which is speech at the heart of the First Amendment. In one of the largest cities in the world, it is to be expected that some inhabitants will sometimes use language that does not conform to conventions of civility and decorum, including offensive language and swear-words. As an elected official, a City Council member will be the subject of personal attacks in such language. It is asking much of City Council members, who have given themselves to public service, to tolerate profanities and personal attacks, but that is what is required by the First Amendment. While the City Council has a right to keep its meetings on topic and moving forward, it cannot sacrifice political speech to a formula of civility. Dogg “may be a gadfly to those with views contrary to [their] own, but First Amendment jurisprudence is clear that the way to oppose offensive speech is by more speech, not censorship, enforced silence or eviction from legitimately occupied public space.” Gathright v. City of 18 Portland, Or., 439 F.3d 573, 578 (9th Cir. 2006). The city that silences a critic will injure itself as much as it injures the critic, for the gadfly’s task is to stir into life the massive beast of the city, to “rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long.” (#PLATO, Five Dialogues, Hackett, 23 2d Ed., Trans. G.M.A. Grube, 35 (Apology).) 24 The court GRANTS summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the as-applied challenge to the Rules of Decorum."
VICTORY=DOGG, LOSERS=L.A. CITY COUNCIL & THE PEOPLE OF L.A. WHO ARE PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS.
ZUMA DOGG SPEAKS ON THIS RULING:
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2013 - via @ZumaDogg: