Dear Editor,
When providing my closing statement at a Candidate Forum, a small but vocal minority of people in the audience interrupted the decorum of the event when I began to explain substantive differences between my policy of seeking to protect and preserve the sensitive rural nature of Malibu by honoring the Vision Statement and Mission Statement, and the contrary approach of Paul Grisanti along with his Planning Commissioner/Development Contractor Dennis Smith, who is under investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission for potential conflicts of interest. Notably, the audience members who engaged in this behavior are the same people who repeatedly call for civility and an end to divisiveness.
Here is a quote of the words I said before I was interrupted mid-sentence:
“Paul says a lot of great things, Paul has a lot of great experience in the city. But where we come apart and what we didn’t talk about tonight at all is the Vision Statement and the Mission Statement, and slow growth versus development. And Paul has consistently supported development in Malibu, contrary to the mission statement . . . [INTERRUPTION]”
To be clear, that is not an attack, and it is not uncivil or divisive. It is simply an effort to explain a substantive difference between the approaches of different candidates — which is the very purpose of a Candidate Forum.
What is uncivil and divisive is for people to refuse to accept that substantive differences are important to understand, and to engage in a mob mentality by shouting down people for expressing substantive views with which they disagree. By exercising a “heckler’s veto,” the audience members who claim to champion civility prevented the majority of the audience from hearing the substantive views I respectfully sought to express, and which they had attended the Candidate Forum to hear.
It also is important and appropriate to discuss and understand who is financing and supporting a candidate’s campaign and who the candidate has appointed or will appoint to the Planning Commission. Are they developers, building contractors, and other special interests, or are they ordinary residents who live in Malibu for its rural serenity and beauty? The sad fact is that billions of dollars have been made by developers and other special interests who have exploited Malibu for personal gain, and billions more remain to be made by activity that threatens Malibu’s fragile rural nature — and those developers and other special interests invest heavily in City Council candidates who support their objectives.
Finally, the disturbance of the Candidate Forum runs counter to the fundamental principles underlying the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As explained in an article on the subject by Erica Goldberg, a law professor at the University of Dayton:
“As a scholar in this area, I know that underlying the First Amendment is a belief that free and open discussion is what makes democracy strong. Conversely, repression of speech is not consistent with democratic ideals or practice.
“The theory behind the First Amendment and the exercise of free speech is that speech, unlike physical conduct or force, should be countered with other speech. Speech is not itself violence, and challenging ideas promotes critical thinking and growth.
“Much of the rising intolerance to speech has a common thread: Instead of using speech or protest to counter the speech or expression that critics dislike, people on the right and the left appear to want to prevent ideas they don’t like from entering the conversation.”
Next time someone tells you their view that a particular candidate is uncivil or divisive because they express substantive views with which the person does not agree, consider the fact that people who fail to put principles above personalities need to put down the magnifying glass and pick up a mirror.
A recording of my comments that preceded the disruption can be viewed at:
Malibu Democratic Club: youtu.be/QmidigrETz4?si=mnLGEw61ou8WBHUt
Bruce Silverstein,
Malibu City Councilmember