Table of Contents
The First Amendment protects the right to criticize elected officials. But not according to one Michigan mayor.

FIRE filed a federal lawsuit against Mayor Monique Owens and the City of Eastpointe, seeking an injunction to stop the mayorâs censorship and allow criticism of her during the Eastpointe City Councilâs public-comment period.
Eastpointe Mayor Monique Owens has a problem with criticism.
During the public-comment period of a September , Owens berated and censored three constituents, insisting that Eastpointe residents have no First Amendment right to directly criticize her â throwing a temper tantrum that ultimately derailed the entire meeting.
In June, Owens was involved in a dispute with a fellow councilmember. She claims 85-year-old Councilman Harvey Curley assaulted her at a community car parade, which he denies. Eastpointe police declined to arrest Curley and prosecutors did not file charges. Eastpointers wanted to weigh in on the scandal involving their elected officials, but Owens would not let them.

Eastpointeâs city attorney pushed back, correctly explaining that âmembers of the public have a right to address the city councilâ and âmay speak individually about a member of the council as well.â He added, âAnybody has a free rein of topics they can discuss, and if they want to address a particular member of this council with criticism, they are allowed to do that. It is part of their First Amendment rights.â
But Owens didnât listen. She continued to shout down and cut off her critics. Now, FIREis handing Eastpointers the mic, suing to protect their First Amendment rights.
Members of the public have both a constitutional right and a civic duty to debate and discuss how their government is performing.
The right to criticize the government is the bedrock principle of First Amendment law. For over 200 years, Americans have understood the unique danger posed by public officers who attempt to regulate public sentiment. A democracy requires citizens to pointedly critique government officials â to test the soundness of their policies and the mettle of their leadership.
That is why political speech, specifically, lies at the heart of the First Amendment, where its protection is âat its zenith,â as the Supreme Court observed in Meyer v. Grant (1988). The First Amendmentâs absolute, unequivocal defense of core political speech is so âaxiomatic,â or self-evident, that government actorsâ flagrant attempts to regulate that speech based on its content shocks the conscience. Thatâs what happened in Eastpointe.
Public officials must have thick skin when encountering inevitable criticism. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court explained that âvehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharpâ personal attacks come with occupying a government office. Sharp and personal critiques are not unpleasant side-effects of democracy â theyâre prerequisites. Democratic governance depends on the free exchange of thoughts, including public denunciation of individual officeholders. As the Court made clear in Sullivan, preserving the marketplace of ideas requires society to uphold its ânational commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.â
A city council invites public comment for a reason: to hear the publicâs feedback. In Michigan, public-comment periods are classified as limited public forums. Unlike a traditional public forum, a limited public forum allows the government to regulate certain features of speech, including content, if the restrictions are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable considering the forumâs purpose. The government may, for example, require that public comments are durationally limited, topically relevant, and profanity-free. So long as these restrictions are reasonable, they pass constitutional muster. But if the First Amendment protects anything, it protects the peopleâs right to criticize their elected officials during a public-comment period of a city council meeting.
Members of the public have both a constitutional right and a civic duty to debate and discuss how their government is performing. Thatâs what four Eastpointe residents tried to do by criticizing their mayor. But the mayor shouted them down because she didnât like what they had to say.
On Nov. 9, 2022, FIREfiled a federal lawsuit against Mayor Monique Owens and the City of Eastpointe, seeking an injunction to stop the mayorâs censorship and allow criticism of her during the Eastpointe City Councilâs public-comment period. âIf you canât say something nice, donât say anything at allâ might be a good lesson for a first grader, but the First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing that rule on its citizens.
Recent Articles
Get the latest free speech news and analysis from ĂÛÖÏăÌÒ.

California wants to make platforms pay for offensive user posts. The First Amendment and Section 230 say otherwise.

Arkansas wants to jail librarians. The First Amendment wonât allow it.

Texas targets antifa because Trump said so, I guess
