Bangor City Council Meeting 2025-11-05: Hate Speech Resolve and Censure Discussion

On November 5, 2025, the Bangor City Council convened to address two primary items emerging from recent disruptions at the October 27th meeting: a resolve to condemn hate speech and an order censuring Councilor Joseph Leonard for his physical reaction to such speech. The meeting featured substantial public testimony on both the constitutional implications of restricting speech and the necessity of maintaining council decorum, alongside internal debate regarding the council's duty to protect residents versus upholding procedural order.

Consent Calendar

• (No specific items detailed in the transcript; agenda items proceeded directly to discussion and voting.)

Public Comments & Testimony

• Michael Alpert expressed concern that the hate speech resolve might be rushed without committee review but later argued that Councilor Leonard's physical actions violated the public trust contract, regardless of the provocation.
• Hilary Simmons opposed the hate speech resolve, stating that while she supports respect, restricting speech based on offense risks silencing honest, controversial debate and that the council should focus on education rather than policy restriction. She also argued against censuring Leonard, emphasizing that leadership requires composure even when faced with ugliness.
• Justin Cartier opposed the hate speech resolve, arguing that hate speech is protected free speech and that the council cannot be the arbiter of truth. He also opposed the censure of Leonard, quoting Martin Luther King Jr. on violence multiplying hate and noting Leonard's previous financial liability to the city.
• Ryan Masano opposed the hate speech resolve, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Matal v. Tam (2017) that there are no exceptions for hate speech in the First Amendment. He argued that condemning only majority-group-targeted hate while ignoring "Loxism" creates a two-tiered justice system.
• Micah Robinson spoke in opposition to the hate speech resolve, arguing it could be used to silence criticism of Israel and conflating speech with violence. He criticized the council for allowing physical intimidation against speakers.
• Jessica Rogers expressed support for the intent of the resolve but warned the language was too broad and could restrict legitimate free speech. She clarified misconceptions regarding a previous settlement involving the Ku Klux Klan.
• James Lamont and Jamie Johnson opposed the resolve, arguing hate speech is protected. Jamie Johnson was cut off after using the phrase "why is that allowed to kill white people." Richard Ward (City Council Candidate) opposed the censure, calling Leonard's actions intimidation and defending the right of all citizens to speak.
• Scott Party expressed unwavering support for Councilor Leonard, arguing his reaction was a moral imperative against white supremacist rhetoric and that the censure prioritizes bureaucracy over democratic values.
• Brendan Davison thanked Councilor Leonard for standing up to fascist agitators.
• Samantha Cassella, a resident and parent, expressed disappointment in Leonard's behavior, arguing that council members must model respectful disagreement for young voters and that aggressive gestures erode trust.
• Christopher Nolan supported the censure, arguing that any citizen behaving similarly would face disorderly conduct charges and that a two-tiered justice system is unfair.
• Councilor Leonard was allowed a brief statement but was largely silent as the chair deferred to the council to avoid further conflict, noting he could not vote.

Discussion Items

• **Resolution 25-314 (Condemning Hate Speech)

  • Counselor Mallor moved for the passage of the resolve, arguing it was a straightforward, necessary action to condemn hate speech, racism, and xenophobia within the community. He believed committee review was unnecessary as the action was clear.
  • Counselor Beck opposed the immediate passage, arguing that the Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights Committee should have reviewed the resolve. He expressed concern that the council was rushing a reaction without due diligence, especially after previously voting down a similar committee recommendation.
  • Counselor Fish argued against referral, stating the council is a democracy, the language was precise, and immediate action was required. He supported the resolve as a direct statement of values.
  • Counselor Haas supported passing the resolve immediately but urged the council to follow up with guidelines and accountability measures, ideally in conjunction with the advisory committee, to ensure the resolve is substantive rather than just "hollow words."
  • Counselor Dean, Counselor Leonard, and Counselor Fournier voiced support for the resolve to clearly condemn the inappropriate and hateful speech directed at them and the community.
  • City Attorney clarified that the resolve does not prohibit speech but condemns it, and that existing standards for a limited public forum already allow for cutting off disorderly or irrelevant comments.

• **Order 25-313 (Censure of Councilor Leonard)

  • Councilor Fournier moved for the passage of the order, citing Leonard's raising of the middle finger and throwing of a pen toward a member of the public as a failure to act with civility and a violation of the Code of Ethics and City Council Guidelines.
  • Councilor Beck moved to postpone the order indefinitely, expressing concern that the censure was redundant (citing the same standards twice) and pontificated rather than addressing the behavior directly. He suggested a simpler statement that the council does not condone the gesture but did not support the formal censure order.
  • Councilor Tremble supported the censure, arguing that ignoring the Chair's instructions, combined with the gesture and projectile, constituted a "circus" and that the council must clarify its expectations for conduct among elected officials.
  • Councilor Haas supported the censure, emphasizing the impact on public speakers who felt threatened and fearful, stating the council needed to regain control to ensure residents feel safe speaking.
  • Councilor Mallor expressed mixed emotions, noting the censure rules were largely "fluff" with no real consequences, but leaned toward support to air the dirty linen publicly.
  • Councilor Dean supported the censure, acknowledging Leonard's passion is an asset but his loss of control was inappropriate, though he noted the response was appropriate.
  • Councilor Fish supported the censure, stating citizens deserve better behavior and that the censure is a necessary statement that the council does not approve of such actions.
  • Councilor Leonard (via Chair) was deferred on further comments to avoid escalation.
  • Councilor Fournier (reiterating) stated that while he agreed with the anti-hate sentiment, the physical actions were distinct from the speech and necessary to censure to maintain order.

Key Outcomes

• Resolution 25-314: Passed unanimously (7-0).

  • The council formally condemned hate speech in all its forms, including prejudice, racism, xenophobia, and gender discrimination.
  • The resolve recognized the negative impact of such speech on the community.
  • No motion to refer to the advisory committee passed during the initial procedural vote (2-5).

• Order 25-313: Passed (5-2).

  • Vote Tally:
    • Yes: Dean, Fish, Haas, Fournier, Trumbull.
    • No: Beck, Mallor.
  • Result: Councilor Joseph Leonard was formally censured for the inappropriate public gesture (middle finger) and physical action (throwing a pen) made during the October 27, 2025, meeting.
  • Directives: The order cited Section 33-1 of the City Code of Ethics and Section 5 of the City Council Guidelines, declaring such behavior unacceptable and contrary to the integrity of the city government. Councilor Beck's motion to postpone indefinitely failed.

Note: The council adjourned after the vote, with several members expressing frustration that the process focused on a single gesture rather than broader systemic issues like election reform or the lack of consequences for hate speech callers.