Shannon Bettis' latest email to Supervisor Arroyo & the DA highlights bigger County issues than First Amendment

 

An email was sent to Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo and District Attorney Stacey Eads at 9:57 a.m. by Shannon Townsend-Bettis and two other people.

"Good Morning, DA Eads, 

I’m just checking in on this email since I sent it before the holiday. We want to make sure you have time to respond to our request.

See below. 

Shannon Townsend-Bettis

Debra Rosebrook

Tricia Murphy"

I have reached out to Supervisor Arroyo and DA Stacey Eads. for comment and cced the CAO Elishia Hayes and Public Information Specialist Cati Gallardo. I added in my email, "I have covered this issue before and pointed out several times that DA Eads has been non responsive to me for months and selective in which media she communicates with which is obvious and changed with my critical but factual court coverage of the DA's office. The CAO's office should not have to respond to what is the DA's job and Ms. Eads unprofessional targeting of certain media and non response to the community is deplorable. I should not have to make PRA requests for department heads who just ignore normal media requests. It has been an issue with Sheriff Honsal but not as egregious as Ms. Eads."

Supervisor Arroyo responded promptly."

Hello John, 

I have seen the emails, which were addressed to DA Eads and from what I saw, all questions were for her and in regards to her office. I don't have anything else to add, thank you. 

Best, Natalie Arroyo"

Text of email sent to Supervisor Arroyo & DA Stacey Eads:

"Dear District Attorney Eads,

We write to you to inform you that your office is violating the First Amendment free speech rights of all residents of Humboldt County.

1)  Since at least November 6, 2023, an anonymous employee in your department has displayed a foreign flag in a public facing window.  Said window is government property.

2)  Said display of the foreign flag constitutes a speech act.  Moreover, said speech act is being performed by a non-governmental entity.  (That is, the speech act is not being performed by the employee as part of their government job.)

3)  You, as District Attorney, have allowed this non-governmental speech act to continue, nearly continuously, since at least November 6, 2023.

4)  When the government (you, in this case) allows a non-governmental entity to engage in speech on government property, the government (i.e. you) have created a public forum.

5)  When the government (you, in this case) creates a public forum, the government (i.e. you) must allow all interested parties to speak in that forum.  (See Shurtleff v. City of Boston and other preceding Supreme Court cases.)

6)  In order to comply with the free speech clause of the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, either: (a) you must direct your employees to remove the flag (and any other non-governmental speech materials) from display in the windows of your department, or (b) you must also allow us to display our flags in the windows of your department.

7)  Please note that the nature of the speech does not matter.  It does not matter if the speech is political (or not).  It does not matter if the speech is religious (or not).  It does not matter if the speech is sincere (or not).  All that matters is that the speech act is being performed by a non-governmental entity.

If one or more of the above points are unclear, we would be happy to clarify them.

If you believe one or more of the above points are incorrect, please inform us of our errors.

If you wish to invite us to display our flags in the windows of your department, please inform us how we can submit our flags for display.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully submitted,

Shannon Townsend-Bettis, Eureka

Tricia Murphy, Big Lagoon

Debra Rosebrook, McKinleyville"