by Max Brantley
During the 6 month period that expires on February 14, 2018, Mr. Skrable’s access as described above will be revoked if he:
(a) is arrested for any crime of violence toward another person;
(b) makes threats of physical injury or property damage to any City employee or official; or
(c) violates any City ordinance or policy as to the use of public facilities.
There is still some concern about Mr. Skrable’s stability as was mentioned during the hearing. The thought is that the six months of experience in all City buildings away from City Hall would allow him to demonstrate that he would not be disruptive at things like the Southwest UPs (United for Progress) meetings held at the Southwest Community Center, during that period of time. Further, the failure to be arrested for crimes of violence of to make terroristic threats – when not under a court order that could lead to immediate imprisonment – would provide definite proof that he could return to Board of Directors meetings and behave himself. As noted, if the conditions were met, then he would be allowed back into all City structures next February (the one day anniversary of the denial of his appeal of the ban). Even if he did not live up to these simple rules, the review process would be one of every 90 days instead of a year.It's a tough case. The city seems to be engaging in prior restraint, essentially imposing punishment now for imagined future action. Carpenter thinks the city is justified.
Now, he has declared that he intends to appear Tuesday night regardless of the status of a modification of the existing ban. In other words, if he does not like the rules, Mr. Skrable will make his own. When it is remembered that the January 20, 2015, incident was the fifth time that he had to be escorted from the Board of Directors meeting room for not complying with the requirement for orderliness during Citizen Communication, this new challenge gives any public official pause. Still, the outline listed above is what the City intends to file with the Court (probably by letter) to let it know about the modification of the ban.
I think prior restraint is unconstitutional. But, I do not think that threats to public officials, and convictions for those threats, and three different judges stating the comments were threatening but the defendant denying that was ever the case, necessarily justifies letting someone back into a forum. Luke is unique. As I said in the letter, he has not been removed from the Board room just once for his behavior. Even the one on January 20, 2015, would probably not have caused his removal. It was the follow up email that took it over the line. While the ability of a judge to order immediate incarceration certainly justifies not taking erratic action, the additional year was to make sure that was no longer the case.Has Skrable made any threats since the 2015 e-mail, I asked?
No, not that I know of. Neither did the man who killed the Mayor and shot the townspeople in Tennessee. Your point?Skrable insists to me he plans no harm to anyone. He says he will appeal, though a lawyer to handle his case might be hard to come by. Carpenter's sticking point is that Skrable still refuses — as he has in multiple court proceedings — to say his e-mail to Moore was threatening. Skrable commented in one of
Yes I am a colossal pain in the ass, gadfly, malcontent BUT the 1st Amendment directly says I can “Petition the Government for a redress of GRIEVANCES” — and Stodola, Moore and all 10 BODs [directors] decided I was not worth having 1st Amendment Rights. I am unclear how any citizen, let alone a citizen of Little Rock since 1978 can be silenced for 31 plus months because he told the truth.What next for
Good question, mainly exercise my 1st Amendment Right again in my limited fashion. ... I just want to speak in this city with the same level of freedom you and your staff do in public.But as to Carpenter's fear of defiance: