Submitted Peter J. Halesey, Esq., Campbell Durrant, P.C., League Business Leaders Network Member
The past several years have seen a marked increase in threats of violence against public officials. Unfortunately, in the past year alone a number of these threats have actually been carried out. In June of 2025, one Minnesota state legislator was killed along with her husband while another was seriously injured along with his wife in a shocking act of violence. In our own state, in April of 2025, an individual attempted to assassinate Governor Josh Shapiro and committed arson at the Governor’s Mansion. The rise in these violent acts may be attributable, in part, to a growing culture of intense rhetoric that goes beyond normal political expression. Rather than limit their expression to protests, individuals seem to be more apt to threaten violence against both elected and appointed public officials. Understandably, this has caused concern among municipal officials, especially given the fact that, generally, local public officials do not enjoy the level of security afforded to those at the federal or even state level.
Municipal meetings, which give the public the opportunity to address their elected local representatives, often present challenges for officials as some individuals use the meeting as a forum to air personal grievances rather than address matters of public concern. “The current political climate and increased amounts of special interest groups has created a higher level of concern for charged reactions,” said Ron Borczyk, Township Manager for Ross Township, Allegheny County. In order to exert some level of control during meetings, Ross Township has instituted policies to govern public comment during its municipal meetings. Those policies include limiting each speaker’s time for comment (five minutes in Ross Township’s case), requiring that groups wishing to speak on the same subject nominate one speaker for the group, and specifically limiting comment opportunities to Township residents and taxpayers. “The policies define a base to which all participants can refer when addressing public comments, and meeting attendees are generally respectful of the policy requirements,” said Mr. Borczyk. “This creates a better atmosphere for meetings and leads to more productive discussion.”
Elected officials agree that establishing rules and regulations for conduct at meetings creates a more positive environment. The Municipality of Mt. Lebanon has also established meeting regulations similar to those instituted by Ross Township. “The atmosphere at our meetings is typically cordial,” said Mt. Lebanon Commissioner Anne Swager-Wilson. “Citizens have a right to share their thoughts and we elected officials are there to hear what they have to say.” One idea that other municipalities may consider is establishing other bodies where citizens may voice their concerns. “Many of the issues that come before the Commission have already been discussed and debated in one of the five advisory boards we have,” said Commissioner Swager-Wilson. “We do not use the Commission Meeting as an additional debate stage.” Another critical point to note is that elected officials do not have any affirmative duty to respond to questions during meetings, although each elected official must determine the level of interaction they wish to engage in based on personal situations. The Municipality of Mt. Lebanon accepts comments during the meetings but ensures follow-up with each individual by the municipal official who is most familiar with the subject matter of the comment. “Most often Commissioners listen intently to citizen comments, but then we thank the presenter without any additional commentary from the Commission,” said Commissioner Swager-Wilson. “If the citizen has a specific question, we will typically have an employee answer the question, or the Manager will get back to them the next day.”
Despite concerns of heightened tensions, public officials must be cognizant of the fact that individuals have great leeway in their speech as it pertains to what they can say to, and about, public officials. The First Amendment provides broad protection to individuals in what they can say to public officials in both meetings and in other forums, such as on social media. Although, as noted by Mr. Borczyk and Commissioner Swager-Wilson’s comments, municipalities may institute policies regulating certain aspects of speech, municipalities must be cautious that those policies do not infringe upon individuals’ constitutional rights. Courts have found that policies prohibiting “negative, challenging, or critical personally directed comments” are overbroad, Marshall v. Amuso, 571 F. Supp 3d 412 (E.D. Pa. 2021), reaffirming the position that public officials must accept even a heightened level of personal criticism. However, officials may adopt content-neutral policies that can serve to engender civil discourse during meetings. Courts have found that content-neutral policies such as requiring a speaker to identify the municipality in which they live, prohibiting speakers from addressing or questioning individual board members and directing their comments to the presiding officer, and permitting the governing body to interrupt or terminate speech pertaining to irrelevant material were permissible. Miller v. Goggin, 672 F. Supp 3d. 14 (E.D. Pa. 2023).
Of course, speech classified as true threats, or that which incites violence, is not protected by the First Amendment. In analyzing speech as a true threat, the state must prove that the person “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.” Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023). Speech which would incite someone to imminent lawless action is also prohibited under the Supreme Court’s holding in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). In Brandenburg, the Court made it clear that it would only punish speech if it were “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” In Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), the Court said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the category of incitement to imminent lawless action, which would render it unprotected, the speech must lead to “imminent disorder.”
“In the past few years, anti-police and anti-government rhetoric has risen,” remarked Cristyn Zett, Chief of Police for Ross Township. “This includes threats which take a variety of forms, from online harassment and verbal intimidation to doxxing and physical assaults.” “Law enforcement should be informed if you receive a threat that is very specific or detailed regarding you, someone close to you, your address, or includes a specific weapon or threat of violence.” “If the threat contains specific information related to you or your family, for example your spouse’s workplace or children’s school, or anything that would not be public information, then this is also a sign to immediately notify law enforcement.” “Multiple communications from the same person may also be indicative of threats or harassment.” Chief Zett also identified some steps that local officials can take if they feel their safety is compromised. “Any person who experiences threats or unusual communications should maintain a record in a manner that produces a date and time stamp.” “Start by saving any electronic communications and by documenting any in-person in an electronic email, memo or note.” “Depending on the nature of the communication, it may take some time to build a case and involving law enforcement early may be helpful.”
Chief Zett also identified several indicators that would generally signal a potential threat. “Articulate, specific, and direct threats of harm to an individual or individuals would be the most clear signs.” “Physical indicators of a potential attack, i.e. fists clenched, hitting or punching objects, encroaching on controlled areas are also warning signs.” “Patterns of aggressive, assaultive, or harassing behavior prior to a meeting or event should also be flagged as early warning signs.” Chief Zett recognized the balance that local officials must strike between ensuring that individuals have the right to be heard while maintaining safety. “Public meetings may include many angry or frustrated people.” “They are allowed to express that and may become quite animated or agitated.” “We recommend working with local law enforcement when you have knowledge that a specific topic or individual may cause an issue.” “Planning a potential response in advance allows for a quicker and better response in the moment.”
Although the First Amendment provides broad protection for an individual’s right to speak, and even speak negatively, of their government, officials are not without recourse to impose reasonable regulations on speech in order to ensure the safety of both elected and employees. Municipal governments should not hesitate to follow the above guidance for ensuring civility during meetings and involving law enforcement when actual threats arise.
Article from the December 2025 Municipal Reporter | Responding to Political Violence Edition
