
Was it public or private? The fate of the Kootenai County Republican town hall incident rests on this element of the free-speech debate
Feb. 25—At the heart of the First Amendment lies the right to free speech — no government entity can restrict speech, even if they find it insulting, unfavorable or disingenuous.
"The government cannot step in and say, 'We don't like it.' At its core, that is what the First Amendment means," said former lawyer and College of Idaho Constitutional law professor McKay Cunningham. "It's also about content. But that is protected. Especially in a public forum."
The issue gained new relevance over the weekend when a former Democratic candidate for Idaho's House of Representatives was forcibly removed from a Republican legislative town hall, spurring questions over the legitimacy of the move in light of the political nature of the event.
Teresa Borrenpohl was dragged by private, unmarked security guards out of the town hall hosted by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee Saturday after she was jeering at people on stage.
Multiple videos show Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris, wearing a hat inscribed with the words, "Kootenai County Sheriff" on the crown, approached Borrenpohl. He told her to leave, and she declined. He asked her if she wanted "pepper spray" and told her she would be arrested, video shows.
Norris grabbed her arm with both hands and attempted to remove her from the town hall. She told him, "Please don't touch me."
After she didn't comply, Norris gestured to the two unidentified private security guards in plainclothes and pointed at Borrenpohl. The two men wrestled her to the ground as she screamed , "Who are these men?" until she was dragged out of the Coeur d'Alene High School auditorium by her arms.
"I could never have imagined my right to free speech and my right to assemble could be stripped in such a violent way," Borrenpohl wrote to The Spokesman-Review on Sunday.
Whether First Amendment rights were violated could depend in part on the nature of the town hall ; typically, free speech can be restricted to an extent if it's interfering with official business, like in a city council meeting. But there's nothing yet to indicate the KCRCC, a political group not affiliated with the government, had any official government business to attend to that would establish restrictions on Borrenpohl's speech.
"If this is a regular business meeting, there's an agenda. And if there is a posted agenda, then generally the public cannot disrupt the operation of the government body," said Coeur d'Alene Police Chief Lee White. "But an open forum, where people can cheer and jeer — there is an expectation that someone's right to free speech will not be infringed upon."
The base of the issue, and what could hinge on the filing of a civil lawsuit, Cunningham says, is whether the meeting was public.
"If we were on the curb on a public street, what this person did would be within her rights to do," he said. "But if this is a private event, much less so."
KCRCC Chair Brent Regan contends the meeting was private, though it was marketed openly by a flyer on Facebook with no tickets or invitation required, something that also could change application of the First Amendment. Regan told The Spokesman-Review Tuesday that the meeting was considered to be private because he paid $500 to rent the space and had to submit insurance for the group to occupy the venue.
But, Coeur d'Alene Public Schools Superintendent Shon Hocker said the event was perceived to be public, according to an internal email he sent to White.
"Saturday's event was presented to the school district as a 'public' event. As such, we went ahead and rented the facility to them," Hocker wrote. "... If we had been approached by apolitical agency to use our facility for a "private" event, it would have been denied."
Regan told The Spokesman-Review it's not true. He declined via phone call to offer proof of payment or insurance.
The school district doubled down in a press memo Tuesday saying the request for the event was granted based on the application that stated the event was open to the public and the venue would provide a neutral location where local residents and their elected officials could engage with one another. The school district also said in the memo that they condemn "any action or rhetoric that denies any person their constitutional rights."
"Any person attending a public event in a public building should feel safe and able to participate without fear of being verbally or physically disrespected, assaulted, or mistreated. As part of the Coeur d'Alene community, the Coeur d'Alene School District is committed to fostering environments that uphold the principles of free speech and civic engagement for all our citizens," the release states.
Borrenpohl bit one of the men who dragged her out of the meeting, according to a press release from the Coeur d'Alene Police Department, so she was cited on suspicion of battery based on the "limited information" police knew at the time. After further reviewing evidence , the city prosecutor's office decided to drop the battery charge "in the interest of justice" and "careful consideration of the law," said Chief Deputy City Attorney Ryan Hunter. The security firm was identified later as LEAR Asset Management, and its license to operate within the city was revoked.
Commentators have noted that Borrenpohl was removed from the event for jeering, while guests who applauded and cheered the speakers were not removed.
"You can restrict behavior, but you cannot restrict content," White said. "For instance, you can't allow cheers, but then not allow jeers. It's got to be all or nothing."
Law enforcement operates under what Cunningham refers to as more of a "shield" if they are acting in their official capacity. Police and deputies are entitled to certain protections because they are paid to uphold the law. But Norris, Cunningham said, could face a civil battle if he was not acting in his capacity as a law enforcement officer at the event.
Norris will face an independent investigation by an outside law enforcement agency to determine if his conduct aligned with office policy. He was expected to release a statement on the incident Tuesday, but didn't.
The Coeur d'Alene Police Department continues to investigate the incident to determine whether anyone in the town hall violated criminal law.
"The problem is when the government — meaning the sheriff — gets involved (with free speech)," White said. "That might create an issue."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
39 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Mahmoud Khalil vows to continue protesting Israel and the war in Gaza after release from detention
Advertisement Joining Khalil at the airport, Ocasio-Cortez said his detention violated the First Amendment and was 'an affront to every American.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'He has been accused, baselessly, of horrific allegations simply because the Trump administration and our overall establishment disagrees with his political speech,' she said. 'The Trump administration knows that they are waging a losing legal battle,' Ocasio-Cortez added. 'They are violating the law, and they know that they are violating the law.' Khalil, a 30-year-old legal resident whose wife gave birth during his 104 days of detention, said he also will speak up for the immigrants he left behind in the detention center. 'Whether you are a citizen, an immigrant, anyone in this land, you're not illegal. That doesn't make you less of a human,' he said. Advertisement Khalil was not accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. However the administration has said noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country for expressing views it considers to be antisemitic and 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Khalil was released after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual' for the government to continue detaining a legal resident who was unlikely to flee and had not been accused of any violence. The government filed notice Friday evening that it was appealing Khalil's release. Ramer reported from Concord, New Hampshire.

an hour ago
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
WASHINGTON -- The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill. The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called 'suppressors' by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks. The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns. Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful." 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.

an hour ago
Clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 is still fighting Supreme Court's ruling
The Kentucky county clerk who became known around the world for her opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage is still arguing in court that it should be overturned. Kim Davis became a cultural lightning rod 10 years ago, bringing national media and conservative religious leaders to eastern Kentucky as she continued for weeks to deny the licenses. She later met Pope Francis in Rome and was parodied on 'Saturday Night Live.' Davis began denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Videos of a same-sex couple arguing with Davis in the clerk's office over their denial of a license drew national attention to her office. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015. Davis was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky Legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses. Davis said her faith forbade her from what she saw as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Faith leaders and conservative political leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and then-Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin rallied to her cause. After her release from jail, Davis addressed the media, saying that issuing same-sex marriage licenses 'would be conflicting with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This would be an act of disobedience to my God.' Davis declined a request for an interview from The Associated Press for this story. In 2018, one of the men who had confronted Davis over her defiance ran for her office. David Ermold said he believed people in Rowan County were sick of Davis and wanted to move on. When he went to file his papers for the Democratic primary, Davis, a Republican, was there in her capacity as clerk to sign him up. Sitting across a desk from each other, the cordial meeting contrasted the first time they met three years earlier. Both candidates lost; Ermold in the primary and Davis in the general election. She has not returned to politics. Davis' lawyers are attempting again to get her case before the Supreme Court, after the high court declined to hear an appeal from her in 2020. A federal judge has ordered Davis to pay a total of $360,000 in damages and attorney fees to Ermold and his partner. Davis lost a bid in March to have her appeal of that ruling heard by a federal appeals court, but she will appeal again to the Supreme Court. Her attorney, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, said the goal is affirm Davis' constitutional rights and 'overturn Obergefell.'