Laserfiche WebLink
action regarding instances of hate speech. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor felt that creating a third degree of intimidation in the City Code might not be effective as such a <br />level of intimidation would be difficult to prove and that subsequently such a level of intimidation might be <br />overturned by advocates of free speech. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz noted that there were legal remedies to address hate speech, but that it was often difficult for the <br />district attorney and city prosecutor’s office to determine which legal remedy to use based on the facts of <br />each case. He commented that he would welcome the challenge of drafting an ordinance that would serve as <br />an effective deterrent to hate speech while at the same time respecting the civil rights of the community. <br />Ms. Piercy recognized that the issue of respecting civil rights while addressing hate speech was difficult and <br />complicated. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor recognized the difficulty in addressing hate speech in the community, but indicated that she was <br />not interested in spending too much of the City’s time and money on the issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if there were any City Code charges of harassment that could be enhanced or strengthened <br />in tandem with the Code’s intimidation charges. Mr. Lidz responded that such enhancement could be <br />achieved by amending the harassment ordinance he previously mentioned. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy asked how the City Attorney’s office would go about redefining the harassment ordinances <br />within the parameters set by the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Johnson. Mr. Lidz replied that the <br />ordinance would have to be examined in relation to the state statute that was declared unconstitutional and <br />then compared to whatever response the state legislature made to that decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor appreciated that the current work session provided the opportunity to discuss the state harassment <br />statute. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring to a public hearing an <br />ordinance that (1) defines Harassment to deal with the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in State v. <br />Johnson that declared the existing version unconstitutional, and (2) creates an offense of Intimidation in <br />the third degree. The motion passed, 4:1 (Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Jon Ruiz <br />City Manager <br /> <br />(Recorded by Wade Hicks) <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br />