Two days before the Joplin City Council is scheduled to discuss Council member Ryan Jackson's comments about a transgender council candidate and his threats to release information he says he has about local TV personalities to anti-LGBTQ sites, the city's newspaper of record appears to be advocating Jackson's removal.
In an editorial in today's edition, titled "Council needs to act on comments," the Globe noted that Jackson's threats against the local television stations, particularly KSNF and KODE, which reported about his disparaging comments about candidate Ellie (Matthew) Wolsey, who was unsuccessful in the election earlier this month, appear to be illegal.
Attempts to intimidate people by releasing personal information is known as “doxing.” Missouri law bans doxing, specifically prohibiting sharing personal information — that would include cellphone numbers, addresses and emails — to cause harm or death or to cause fear of harm or death. If the threat were found to constitute harassment or stalking, Jackson could also face legal repercussions.
The editorial notes that Jackson says his comments are protected by the First Amendment.
While free speech may protect Jackson’s comment, it doesn’t relieve him of his responsibilities as an elected official. Nor does it protect him from the consequences of his remarks.
The Globe concluded its editorial by advocating for steps to be taken against Jackson.
While all legislative bodies should be hesitant to oust someone voters approved, this isn’t Jackson’s first offense and both incidents involved his comments about LGBTQ residents. Censure or even removal should be on the table.
If the Joplin City Council fails to act, city residents should pursue a recall petition.
6 comments:
Nothing short of his removal is acceptable!
Damn right! Jackson is a bigoted jackass. Boot him back to his white supremist compound!
Pretty simple... if he runs for reelection don't vote if don't like his viewpoint on LGBTQ.
Put it to a vote!
Joplin voters voted him and now Joplin residents want him gone because of his opinion and beliefs.
So who’s more out of line here, the voters who elected him to office for not knowing the person better or those who disagree with his opinions and beliefs?
I don’t know the councilman personally and I did not vote for him either. But for those who did vote for him is this a case of reap what you sow?
Chapter 77
< > Effective - 28 Aug 1939 bottom
77.340. May remove officer with consent of council. — The mayor may, with the consent of a majority of all the members elected to the city council, remove from office, for cause shown, any elective officer of the city, such officer being first given opportunity, together with his witnesses, to be heard before the council, sitting as a court of impeachment. Any elective officer may, in like manner, for cause shown, be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to the city council, independently of the mayor's approval or recommendation. The mayor may, with the consent of a majority of all the members elected to the council, remove from office any appointive officer of the city at will; and any such appointive officer may be so removed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to the council, independently of the mayor's approval or recommendation. The council may pass ordinances regulating the manner of impeachment and removals.
--------
(RSMo 1939 § 6875)
Prior revisions: 1929 § 6729; 1919 § 8216; 1909 § 9153
Post a Comment