I must confess that I neglected the story of the Palo Alto city council members who were considering a ban on
Anyhow, to make amends to my readers, here is a follow-up from Nicole C. Wong in the San Jose Mercury News - Polite Reversal:
The fuss over frowning has generated so much angst, ridicule and hate mail that the Palo Alto City Council is doing an about-face.Either would certainly be appropriate. Hmm, it might also be good for the current crop of contenders for the Democrat party presidential nomination and I'm sure it's their kind of positive action for America.
The council plans to dump a proposed guideline discouraging members from frowning or using other body language to show "disagreement or disgust" at public meetings.
The reversal came after a Mercury News story on the loosely worded proposal drew worldwide attention and triggered a flood of calls and angry e-mails complaining that the guideline was odd, unenforceable and almost an infringement on freedom of expression.
Among the e-mail jabs: "Perhaps you could all wear masks . . . or straitjackets."
The Financial Times of London and the Gold Coast Bulletin in Australia picked up the story, as did CNN.com and other news Web sites. Radio talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly reportedly poked fun at Palo Alto's push toward politeness, too.Mean people suck!
Councilwoman Judy Kleinberg, who headed the committee that drafted the code of conduct, says critics have called her "a Nazi" and a long list of expletives.
She says the suggestion was never intended to stifle freedom of expression. Instead, she saw it as a way to quash intimidation and show respect to whoever is speaking.
As committee chairwoman, Kleinberg has been the focal point of the criticism. But the longstanding member of the American Civil Liberties Union said she sees a silver lining in the furious phone calls and e-mails.For her next trick, Judy will rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
"I am extremely heartened to find out that so many people out there cherish the First Amendment and are vigilant about government interference in the First Amendment."