Who are the idiots that put this loose cannon on an advisory commission.

Would have been nice if Mr. DeBolt had also asked Seth Brysk of the Anti-Defamation League what he thought of Ms. Byrants comments about the Berlin Wall?

My inside sources tell me this guy is history. Would be better to let him serve out his term and not re-appoint him

@Political Insider: Let him serve out his term? He was reappointed 3 months ago so his term expires in 12/16 which is a long time from now.

Why didn't he just post his crazy comments on the Voice website anonymously like all the other wackos out there?

i didn't get to read any of those comments, but how do we know it was really him? is it possible it was someone else posing/posting as him?

@curious: I think you can safely assume they are him since he also made the same comments directly elsewhere, and more importantly, he actually states ("since you deleted my comments...")

"This is not a community that tolerates this, I believe." we are living in an intolerant city where freedom of speech does not exist now?

(Post removed; stick to the topic.)

In encourage the mayor and city council to remove this blight on Mountain View as soon as possible and show that they are not about to be bullied by the hollow threats of '500 pages of interrogatories' from someone whose LinkedIn says he got his MBA from University of Phoenix yet neglects to mention that he graduated law school. If Mr. Parkinson thinks that all he has to do is 'pass the bar' to get at Mountain View's deep pockets for taking any action against him then I suggest he register for the July bar exam. Freedom of speech is protected but hate speech is not and it always needs to be dealt with swiftly because there is place for it in society.

In America, you can say anything about anything but nothing against Israel or someone of Jewish descent. It will be considered as anti semitic and oen wil be sued for billions of dollars and banished from public life for ever. America is now officially a banana republic controlled by Israel.

@A lawyer,

And where did you get your law degree? Did you proofread prior to clicking submit?

What a complete loser. He really doubled down on those anti-semitic comments, and I'm glad no one was intimidated by his stupid threats.

anony: It is a free country, but the First Amendment doesn't guarantee him the last word or that he won't be removed from some committee. "This is not a community that tolerates this" doesn't mean he will be imprisoned. He can certainly be made to feel unwelcome (chastised and shunned).

There are also limits to free speech that he may have crossed - defamation and barratry.

Wow. He manages to be both anti-Semitic and misogynistic, threatens the city and its council members with legal action, and he is telling council member Bryant to calm down?? It is hard to imagine this guy serving effectively in any public capacity.

When will this community and our councilmembers and the CENSORS of this forum come to comprehend that the freedom to speak and to hear what anyone would speak is the foundation of our system of self government?

The only two exceptions to First Amendement protection for speech are (1) obscenity and (2) clear and present danger. There is no exception for hate speech. Even if the speech at issue was motivated by hate, which is far from clear, it would be fully protected.

Looks like the end of his career, serves him right.

What happened to my hometown, I didn't think we would behave like this, I don't know Ronit Bryant, but people voted for her so she must be doing something right. Jac Siegel and his family lived right near us in the 70's, nice family by the way.

I scratch my head in disbelief and going what the?

You Know Who: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." The Voice is fully within their rights to remove hateful comments, and I'm glad they do. The legal protection of the First Amendment is not quite as broad as you make it out to be, either. "There is no constitutional value in false statements of fact."

Web Link

I'm embarrassed such a person works for my city. I support removal from his position. As a private citizen, he can say whatever he likes, though his views are pathetic. I just don't like him being able to assert credibility for his racist, misogynistic ranting based on being on a formal committee.

We could and do take these types of " Free Speech " claimants to pieces on several Internet Troll Sites set up for that " Free Speech " purpose.

Web Link

E-papers and the physical versions are usually NOT places where you can expect " Freedom of Speech " to be allowed. Many of the " Guardians of the Public Morals " AKA Main $tream Media " have turned into mouthpieces of the local government. Yes, the comments that I made about changing the name by replacing the word Voice with the word Mouthpiece were quickly censored.
Don't expect a true, open source of REPORTING from a Journalist. Expressions of beliefs or opinions are allowed to appear from ANY M$M Journalist when any " News " is displayed. ( NOT A REPORTER, The word " Journalist " is an epithet to me ) Political Correctness is destroying this country; so many illiterate Journalists who cannot even write a proper article and adding their OPINIONS and personal BIAS change REPORTING into an opinion piece that should be on an Editorial Page.

THAT change is why many sources of revenue for the Fourth Estate are disappearing.

Let other residents of a community express their displeasure DIRECTLY when confronted with speech not in acceptance with the community.
When someone " claims to be a professional ", have a person PROVE IT before allowing that title to be used in a comment section. That kind of REPORTING could start bringing a bit of REALITY and real professionalism back to a public ( it's NOT really one here ) forum.

I am "You Know Who"; I didn't have my password so could not log on.

I haven't seen the speech that we are discussing. But from what I've read here, it does not sound like it is motivated by hate, and even if it was, it is fully protected speech since it is not obscene and it does not create a "clear and present danger".

This is arguably a limited public forum. In a limited public forum, the operator of the forum is allowed to limit the topics discussed, but for any given topic, is not allowed to limit the viewpoint expressed.

The relevant law is (1) the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (2) The freedom of speech provision of the California Constitution, and (3) Penal Code 403. For limited public forums, (1) and (2) only apply when the forum is operated by government. The censorship that the Voice applies to these online forums arguably violates Penal Code 403.

Law aside, the fact that the Voice censors its forums indicates that the Voice's managing editor is utterly clueless about the critically important role that newspapers play in our society to keep the public informed and to promote "a vigorous marketplace of ideas". The fact that a city council member and other government officials would refer to the utterance of a viewpoint, no matter how politically incorrect that viewpoint is, as "unacceptable", indicates a similar cluelessness in local government.

The danger posed by this cluelessness about the importance of tolerance for speech is far greater than any danger that could be posed by someone expressing his fear that some specified group secretly controls the world.

To Lawyer: Hate speech is fully protected speech in the United States. See Barron and Dienes, First Amendment Law in a Nutshell, 2009 ed.. For a recent Supreme Court case that is on point, see Snyder v. Phelps, 2011 or 2012.

I am a civic speaker who is often accused of hate speech. My experiences suggest to me that a hate speech exception would be imposssible in practice because it is so easy for someone to cry "hate, hate" in order to silence an inconvenient viewpoint.

I am told that in the United Kingdom there is a hate speech exclusion with teeth. Much of the speech that I have presented in Mountain View with my signs would not be speakable in Great Britain.

My own view is that, even when the speech really is hate speech and really is intended to defame a particular ethnic or religious or other group, the potential for abuse of any hate speech exclusion is so great that we simply must find a way to tolerate the hate speech and to respond to it rather than just silence it.

I agree with Wo\'O Ideafarm for the most part. We should tolerate, but not have to agree with or accept the speech of others, especially when it is just speech. In terms of this blog, there are "terms of use" and if people don't like them they are free to start their own blog. Even a reporter like Mr. DeBolt gets edited/censored (but unfortunately not enough) by his editor. So for example when I refer to Ronit the (comment removed and deemed inappropriate), it is more of a term of endearment than a negative reference.

So he likes to threaten people with law suits. Nice public official.
Here's a link to another comment he made threatening to sue Steven Creek Trail bikers with xenon lights.

His comment "If I go blind as a public official, I will sue them for more than than their bikes."

Web Link

It is truly sad that the rest of the City Council has been so silent about this. Mr. Parkinson has the right to his bigoted opinions, but the City Council has the choice to terminate their association with him because of his disparaging public remarks. The Mayor should have suspended him pending definitive action by the full council at their next meeting. How could he sue the City? Since he volunteers, doesn't that mean he suffers no loss if they terminate his engagement?

It's too bad the City manager didn't do a better job vetting their appointee. Perhaps he has learned a lesson from this, and vetting should be required of all council appointees.

It is arguably illegal to discipline a citizen participating in local government for speaking his views. Every citizen has a constitutional right to speak his sentiments freely on all subjects without any retaliation of any kind by government. Any action by government to discipline this speaker, including termination of his appointment, would be illegal.

The city can circumvent the law. That's the primary function of City Attorney Jannie Quinn. But just because the City CAN does not mean that it SHOULD.

I did some checking and perhaps there is good reason some council members are silent. The appointments review committee that re-appointed him consisted of Seigal, Kasperzack and Inks. Bryant and Abe-Koba also supported the nomination. Clark and McAlister were not on council.

My inside sources tell me he will be terminated.

Please repeat after me 8 times:

I DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE SAYS BUT I WILL DEFEND HIS RIGHT TO SAY IT

Disciplining this committee appointee for "expressing his sentiments", without more, is illegal. Government simply is not allowed to do that. Anyone in government who will not make a stand to defend our organic law (federal and state constitutions) and say, "Not on my watch!" does not belong in our government. That includes our City Attorney Jannie Quinn.

It is time for SOMEONE and for EVERYONE in municipal government here to stand up for constitutional government here in Mountain View. In particular, SOMEONE on the council should clearly and strongly state, on the record, "I DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE SAYS BUT WILL DEFEND HIS RIGHT TO SAY IT" and that he or she opposes termination as well as any other form of discipline.

Citizens do not lay their civil rights at the door when they enter into public service roles.

P.S. If he is terminated, I hope that he sues the hell out of the city, as long as he leaves some scraps for me to take in MY lawsuit.

"I will make them bleed"
"I am deadly serious here"
"I... will bury the city"
"Think again Mayor, think again"
"you too will be sued and so too this paper"

[Putting on my Dr. Phil mask] This is a person with anger issues caused by some core problems. People like this often manifest their frustration and anger through causes such as racism and antisemitism, feminism, political causes, or substance abuse. Is Christopher really antisemitic? I don't know. But, I do know that he needs help before his problems consume him and turn to more destructive actions.

Censorship --

This site is run by the Voice. It's their house, their rules. They can decide what is on-topic and what is noise.

Don't like it? Run your own website.

My earlier comment with a link to a YouTube clip of the Lighten up Francis scene from Strips got yanked. It was funny and on target, but it's removal is hardly oppressing me. As the kids say, BFD.

Christopher, I know you are reading this. This is your future: Web Link Seriously dude, get help.

I oppose USA's views. In particular, I oppose the insulting "get help" portion. Mr. Parkinson should not be referred to by his first name. Nothing negative should be said about him or about anyone else. Ad hominem attacks are infantile. What is spoken here should promote truth and community. Aretha Franklin sung it well... R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Tolerance for speech is critically important in our system of self government. The Mountain View Municipal Corporation operates as if it is above the law, and it willfully ignores and circumvents our organic law. That is by far the most important issue raised by this incident.

Nothing on USA's list constitutes obscenity or clear and present danger. Until someone identifies what Mr. Parkinson said that is in one of those two categories of speech, I stand with him.

To each and every one of you reading this: If you disagree with what Mr. Parkinson said, the correct (Civics 101) response is:

"I DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE SAYS, BUT I WILL DEFEND HIS RIGHT TO SAY IT."

Then do it, in a meaningful way. Pay attention to which city council members make a stand for the Constitution in this matter.

This is not about Christopher Parkinson. It is about the Constitution and whether we will have constitutional government in Mountain View.

There seems to be confusion about the difference between free speech and the ability to carry out the responsibilities of a specific appointment.An "Ambassador to the City"which all high profile commissions are whether for arts, history etc. is to enhance the
cultural"fabric" of the city and to attract community participation
and supportive patrons to that venue.Part of the qualifications for the job is being a liaison.Yes we are given free speech as a right,we are also required to meet a code of conduct and certain qualifications
in order to perform in the capacity for the work we are hired to do.This is required for volunteer positions in which one represents the city rather than themselves as well.This is where the disconnect is.
People who have studied law also know that the confidentiality requirement for lawyers is a very strict code and they can be jailed actually for breaching it.This is the ability to perform the work.The first amendment can not be used to defend a breach of one's duties or oath of office.As is human nature,those railing in this forum about free speech,would scream to high heaven if a public servant used pejorative speech or attitudes toward them in carrying out their official duties.
The greatest irony of my statements here is that those who know me,
know that I'm a bit of a rebel and often take great pleasure in poking a finger in the eye of the status quo...but dissent is
dissent- without the willingness to accept personal risk to one's position or prestige there is no valor in it. When we blur the definition of the First Amendment we nullify it's purpose.

WOW in this age of technology,I can only pray they will expand
1st Amendment's definition to include the WORST formatting
ever.RE:my previous comment.My bad.
Please try to slog through it!Sorry guys.

Wendyleela, your argument has merit and you express it respectfully. But it must be rejected. If we accepted your argument, only people with "politically correct" viewpoints would be eligible for participation in local government.

This would be illegal. Government simply is not allowed to operate in a way that is not "viewpoint neutral". Government is not allowed to operate in a way that denies or grants rights or privileges according to the viewpoints held by the citizen.

The First Amendment imposes this rule upon municipal governments: The selection and approval of committee chairs and other appointed participants in local government must be made without regard to the viewpoints of the candidate. When an appointee speaks his viewpoint and it is clear that he is not speaking for the City, the community must remember that he or she is speaking as a private person and is not speaking for the municipal corporation.

Even if a city has an appointed spokesperson, that person does not lay his or her civil rights at the door. Anyone, with any viewpoint whatsoever, no matter how politically incorrect, no matter how outrageous, has the civil right to be considered even for the role of "City Spokesperson".

To be concrete, Mr. Parkinson could be an excellent spokesperson for the City of Mountain View as long as he did not use the City's podium as a platform for promoting his personal views. After a good day's work representing the City, Mr. Parkinson could spend a pleasant evening discussing the issues of the day with his friends and fellow neighbors, and in those discussions he should be perfectly free to express his fear that the [insert] ethnic group conspires secretly to control the world. There is no inconsistency. This is what life is like in a free society.

To think that the people of Mountain View are not intelligent enough to know when Mr. Parkinson is speaking for the city and when he is speaking privately is insulting and patronizing to the people.

I stand solidly with Mr. Parkinson on this. There is absolutely no reason why he cannot serve as the Visual Arts Committee Chair. The purpose and function of that committee has no nexus with Mr. Parkinson's political/conspiracy fear and concern. If the other people on that committee are intolerant of his "politically incorrect" viewpoint and shun him and the committee, then the fault lies with them, not with Mr. Parkinson.

I would like to see one of the Council who has a Jewish background stand up for Mr. Parkinson and for the Constitution. That would be real leadership. I wish that I had a Jewish background so I could do it myself.

Wow the haters. No comment other to say its a sad day in our city. Rothschild is a word gilded in hate. So very sad.

Defamation is real, stop it. I suspect the city is over it. I am still waiting for that letter from Council member Bryant apologizing what she has said and this newspaper for fanning the flames of defamation.

Again the word and name Rothschild is hate, its all over websites it truly is amazing, and it is well apparent how that hate works to defame those that use it.

For the health of our fair and great City, we really are, I am formally asking this stops.

I APOLOGIZE FOR A NIGHT OF CELEBRATORY DEBAUCHERY THAT RESULTED IN TYPED WORDS THAT OFFENDED. I cant put that any other way.

These forums of people who post anonymously, well just put it this way, my brother: retired chief of police, my brother-in-law: retired Sheriff of LA, and my other brother in law: retired Department of Corrections all agree on: prisons allow computer access. I will take all this hate filled defamatory speech with a grain of salt, they are either children, or they are sitting in orange jump suits typing.

All my relatives are astonished at all of this and side with me in support of any legal actions that come about. Be careful for your own sakes, my family is the definition of deep pockets, they know where corruption lives, litigation is nothing to them, and take this very seriously.

So please for everyone sakes stop this, the city has, Council Member Bryant still owes me an apology, and this news paper, well they certainly enjoy their 1st amendment rights, but it only goes so far.

Me, I live in a world of huge family support as they always have done. Stanford Hospital understands the sting of coming up against my family, heads of a department fired. A Hospital threatened with my deep pocket family at my behest with a law suit that would have bankrupted their malpractice insurance. My family is no one to trifle with, for this newspapers health stop this now.

Going to crawl back under my rock now, wow, this really stings, hope your all happy.

"unleashes anti-Semitic comments", I deny that. Prove it. This paper is running in an area where my lawyer is loving every minute of it. Stop this now, it is this papers opinion that me repeating a councilmember's Facebook or My Space page origin and using Rothschild's who are impressive people, politically massively so is anti-Semitic. Where is that anti-Semitic? I am myopically sorry, I don't get it.

"The world is a looking glass and gives back to every man the reflection of his own face." (William Makepeace Thackeray)

Be careful as to who cast the first stone, it is more about you than about the target.

Nirvana: Extinguish the flames of delusion, desire, and hostility. Light the fires of Truth, Generosity, and Compassion.

Repeat it over and over, you will feel better. I am at peace.

And USA are you threatening me? Really, you maintain I physically attack people? Really? Who needs the help? Or are you saying you have a desire to attack me?

You see Newspaper what you are doing? My lawyer says stop this now and apologize.


Back under my rock I go. Thanks.

Others have already touched on the subject of free speech and its erosion in the face of political correctness. It is ironic that this began over where to locate sections of the Berlin wall. It was free speech that Erich Honecker and the East Stasi suppressed. The wall segments are examples of how free speech and liberty conquered communism. Unfortunately those far to the left of Erich Honecker presently occupy the White House and some of the Mountain View city council seats. Does anyone really deny Mr. Parkinson's comment that Zoe Lofgren is Anti-American? The wall segments belong in front of city hall in order to remind elected officials of the past and especially the failure of Marxism/communism.

Good can come of this. Let each of the main characters in this drama pause and reflect upon what action creates the most good for others.

GREATNESS = BOLDNESS + HUMILITY

Please, each of you, be bold in acting for the good of others, and be humble about acknowledging fault, if only to yourself.

Mr. Parkinson, be great. City Council members, be great. Our Jewish brothers, be great. Our Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and other brothers, be great. Find greatness by connecting with Higher Power, according to your understanding. Set aside concern for self interest and do the right thing. Trust God to provide what you need.

This would be a good time for all of us to say a gentle prayer aloud with each other. We can't do that over the Internet, but stop for a moment and imagine it. Imagine, all of you main characters, standing together in a pleasant, peaceful room, with your heads bowed in prayer, together, so that God can be present in the room and in your hearts.

There is nothing in my prior comments that could possibly be taken as a threat. Your reaction only further confirms that you have anger issues that are going to hurt you and others if you do not address them.

You are on the road to destruction. Turn back.

USA: I agree with you that nothing you've posted here suggests a threat.

OTOH, your posts are doing more harm than good. Publicly psychoanalyzing Mr. Parkinson is disrespectful. Your negative pronouncements regarding his character defame him. Hiding behind anonymity is cowardly, and the particular pseudonym that you use, "USA", is appalling.

When strangers interact in a public forum such as this, nothing negative should be said about anyone. It should be understood by all that ad hominem attacks such as yours contribute nothing to the community's search for truth and for unity. Please do not post anything else about anyone's character.

Meh USA, I received a threatening email with things reflecting what you said. The DA is investigating. My family is being threatened and my mighty extended family is not taking any of this as non threatening, nor lying down.

Paper if you do not retract this today remembering I am not a public official and saying the things you are saying are slander, I cannot promise that my powerful family will not go against you. When you attack a Parkinson, you are attacking a nation of several hundred strong and some are attorneys, I only need take the BAR. And my Wife? Her family too is very upset with all of this and I cannot promise that they wont sue this paper as well, and they too represent hundreds of stellar professional's; and all in California.

I repeat I am not a public official, only elected Council are. I repeat that some of the claims this paper made are false, I never said most of these things. I certainly never said with intent anything anti-Semite and this will very well go to court and once and for all put this to rest.

Problem with online papers, they allow for the lunatics to comment and it gets them where it hurts; before some lunatic Laufgren type in our midst does something unspeakable. What you are doing is equal to saying fire in a theater. Your speech is not protected and I and my family of several hundred are ready to legally put a stop to all of this.

Again Final Demand retract this.

Blessed are the peacemakers. Mr. Parkinson, choose your battles. Ignore your anonymous detractor(s). Focus on standing firm for the Constitution. This fight isn't really about YOU. It is about the First Amendment.

Give others time to absorb the ideas that have been spoken. Give others the opportunity to change their position now that they realize that freedom of speech is at issue. If you stand, not for yourself, but for the First Amendment, many will stand with you, and I will be one of them.