FLAGGED FOR REMOVAL: New Jersey resident ejected from town council meeting for displaying American flag and U.S. Constitution

In yet another news item that had us double-checking we weren’t reading an Onion article, a New Jersey township council ejected a resident for nondisruptively holding an American flag and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

During a meeting of the Edison Township Municipal Council on Nov. 25, the council formally adopted Ordinance 2239-2024, which would “establish firm rules of decorum for conduct at Township Council Meetings.” Among these rules is a prohibition on “the use of props while addressing the council,” which apparently include the symbols of our republic.

Edison community members were having none of it.

Joel Bassoff, a lawyer and Edison resident, addressed the council with sharp criticisms of the ordinance, including another provision which would shorten the time limits for public comments. To make his point he ripped up a copy of the time limit ordinance, and then held up a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

“Every member of the council took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution,” Bassoff said. “I’m holding up a copy of the Constitution to remind you of that oath.”

Bassoff was soon interrupted by council president Nishith Patel, who said, “This will be served as a prop, as last discussed in the last meeting. If you continue to use it as a prop, the Constitution, then we will act — take this as a warning. If you continue, you will forfeit your time.”

“I’m sorry,” Bassoff interjected, “I’m not putting down the U.S. Constitution.”

The exchange became contentious, Patel ordered police officers to remove Bassoff, and Bassoff was forced to sit down.

That wasn’t the end of it, however.

View video

Bassoff later returned to the stand again to offer comments, this time holding an American flag, and continued to criticize the council. “By attempting to control decorum, the council will have adopted an unconstitutional ordinance. Your effort to ban costumes, non-medical masks, and props violates the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Bassoff continued, accusing the council of seeking to avoid “being embarrassed” by “trying to ban the people who humiliate [them].” However, he noted, “the best way to avoid humiliation is to stop doing stupid things like trying to clamp down on constitutionally protected symbolic speech… And if you get sued, you will lose.”

Holding a small flag or a copy of the Constitution does not disrupt a meeting — it enhances the speaker’s message.

He then raised his American flag “to represent the constitutional values that we should be loyal to.”

In response, Patel issued Bassoff another warning, which set off another contentious exchange that led to Edison police showing Bassoff out.

But Bassoff was correct — the prop ban presents several First Amendment issues. First, the term “prop” is undefined. Will a water bottle with a slogan on it be considered a prop? How about a t-shirt? Or a pin? Or a resident showing council members a newspaper article, or a petition, or pictures of potholes on their street to back up their complaints? 

First Amendment protections for public comment at government meetings

Issue Pages

When it comes to public comment periods, what are the free speech rights of citizens? And what limits does the First Amendment impose on public officials?

Read More

In Patel’s own words, the policy will be enforced at his discretion. He reportedly stated that “any props will be considered not conducive to good order and as the president, I am making that call.” This creates a risk that council members like Patel will target criticism like Bassoff’s under the guise of preventing disruption. But government officials cannot impose vague restrictions on speech that fail to provide reasonable notice of what is prohibited, or that afford officials too much power to decide what speech to allow.

Second, the prop ban sweeps too broadly. Even if a prop can in some contexts cause the kind of disruption the council has the authority to prohibit, in many circumstances it can non-disruptively bolster a speaker’s commentary. Bassoff’s display of the flag and Constitution symbolized the values he believed the council was trampling on. It caused no disruption. It was Patel’s reaction that disrupted the meeting. And while the ordinance may be superficially content-neutral, even content-neutral restrictions must also be reasonable. It’s clear from Patel’s exchange with Bassoff alone that Ordinance 2239 does not meet this standard, since it's hardly reasonable to ban speakers from using literally any object to enhance or emphasize their message.

The decorum ordinance’s problems don’t stop there. It also prohibits “loud, physically threatening, abusive, or excessively vulgar language” and “patently offensive or abusive language.” In keeping with the narrowly defined exceptions to the First Amendment’s protection, the council can ban things like true threats. But as federal courts have recently ruled (consistent with FIRE’s position), vague and viewpoint-discriminatory bans on language deemed “abusive,” “offensive,” “hateful,” or similarly objectionable violate the First Amendment.

Following an eruption of bad press after the meeting, Patel responded by arguing, “the Edison Council has never, nor will we ever, ban the American flag from our public meetings.” He added that the ordinance makes no reference to the flag being banned and said it “was intended to prevent the chronic and chaotic disturbances that have found their way into our council chamber which at times prevent us from doing the important business of our township.”

But Patel’s observation that the ordinance does not explicitly reference the flag is irrelevant. Whatever the council’s intentions, the ordinance bans far more speech than that which causes “chaotic disturbances.” And as the incident involving Bassoff made clear, Patel believes he can exercise his discretion to interpret the ban on “props” — and in fact did so to the American flag and the U.S. Constitution during the meeting.

No, you can't be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance

News

Do you believe in pledging allegiance to the flag? Do you believe in doing it because you want to, or because you have to? If some Arizona lawmakers got their way, not everyone would have that choice.

Read More

In fact, as Bassoff was collecting his things before being ejected, another Edison resident had taken the stand and was also criticizing the council while holding an American flag. 

“We still have a right to speak,” he said. “No one should silence us or tell us how long we can talk.” Patel issued the speaker a warning for violating Ordinance 2239, but the speaker was not deterred.

Nor should he be. Holding a small flag or a copy of the Constitution does not disrupt a meeting — it enhances the speaker’s message. More than that, it is a protected form of expression, and community members should know their rights when it comes to public comments at government meetings.

That’s why we have a warning of our own for Mr. Patel and the entire Edison Township government: Violate the First Amendment, and you will hear from FIRE.