City Council Rule Change Sparks Privacy and Free Speech Concerns: Norwich Council Closes Public Comment Early

Norwich, CT - the charming town featured in several movies including at least one Hallmark movie is plagued with high taxes, wasteful spending, blight, addiction, and crime. This is no Hallmark movie! One key issue is lack of representation for the general public by elected officials.

The mayor, Peter Nystrom, who was ineligible for another mayoral run won a seat on council in 2025. As mayor, Nystrom, along with council required anyone speaking during council to disclose name and address. This requirement may seem reasonable to some, but the information is collected, entered into minutes with summary of what was discussed and made publicly available.

Additionally, the information is included in videos released by the city of Norwich. This type of doxxing records: Who spoke, the speaker's address, and summary of what was spoken - publicly.

Do you have a right to opt out?

While there is no explicit opt-out clause, the short answer is Yes. If you opt out, you are not "allowed" to speak.

What's the issue with giving your information?

Requiring public disclosure of name and address during city council meetings:

* Conflicts with First Amendment protections for anonymous or pseudonymous political expression

* Violates reasonable expectations of privacy in an era where online records are permanent

* Discourages participation, especially from vulnerable or dissenting individuals

* Fails the test of narrow tailoring — there are less invasive ways to verify residency or identity

The City of Norwich Council recently amended its rules of procedure to require anyone speaking during the public comment period to state their full name and home address. The rule appears to apply inconsistently — enforced for some speakers but not all — and the personal information collected is later published online in official meeting minutes and video archives.

Privacy advocates warn the new policy could expose residents to safety risks and discourage participation. In several other states, residents are allowed to withhold personal information or have “opt-out” protections under privacy laws that prevent the release of home addresses in public records.

During the October 20 meeting, the council voted 7-0 to close public comment early, cutting off several residents who had intended to speak. One regular attendee, known locally as “Rocky,” objected, saying, “So I can’t speak!”  Update 15:33 Rocky's exact words were:

"We have a right to address our grievances with the government. It's in the constitution of the United States of America!"

The 7-0 motion to close citizen comment completed, Rocky stated again he had the right to speak. Rocky asked, 

"Sir, we have the right to redress our grievances. How am I going to do that? How?"

Mayor: No more outbursts.

Rocky: Or what?

Mayor: Officer, remove him.

Rocky: Excuse me, Am I breaking the law?

Mayor: It's called disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace.

One resident citizen commented: The hell it is.

Police were called after the mayor declared a  No charges were filed, but the police response alarmed attendees who viewed it as an unnecessary escalation.

Coverage by The Day newspaper focused largely on alleged disruptions by residents, while critics say the story overlooked the broader issue — the potential infringement of citizens’ rights to privacy and free expression at public meetings.

Expert Perspectives

Dr. Jane Bambauer, a law professor who teaches media, privacy and First Amendment law at the University of Florida, explains:

“When government-run meetings require participants to supply detailed home address information and then publish it, you shift the dynamic from a civic forum to a surveillance-enhanced forum. Speakers aren’t just speaking — they’re revealing location data that stays on record. That naturally chills participation, especially for dissenting voices.” (See her work on privacy and First Amendment dynamics.) Hoover Institution+2Hoover Institution+2

Eugene Volokh, a prominent First Amendment scholar and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, adds:

“Anonymous or pseudonymous political speech has long been protected because it enables robust public debate free from fear of retaliation. Requiring names and addresses for speakers in a public forum imposes a burden that may not be justified unless the government demonstrates a narrowly tailored interest.” (See his analysis of free speech versus informational privacy.) UC Berkeley Law+2Hoover Institution+2

Dr. Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University and a recognized privacy law expert, points out the link between privacy and free expression:

“Privacy is not simply a separate value from free speech; it underpins it. If speakers know that every detail they share will be permanently and publicly tied to their home address, the safe space for open civic commentary shrinks. That’s particularly true in digital-archived forms of government meetings.” (See his work on “Intellectual Privacy.”) Stanford CIS+1

Author Marcia Wilbur, privacy and free speech advocate - resident of Norwich, CT  states this is a privacy and free speech issue:

"The entire issue is absolutely ludicrous. This is blatant disregard of 1st Amendment rights as well as a privacy risk to locals. I often state: Ignore your rights, They'll go away!"

What’s at Stake

• Privacy & safety: Publishing full home addresses tied to speech creates a searchable, persistent link between individuals and what they say in public meetings. That exposure can lead to harassment, doxxing, or targeting of speakers.

• Free speech & access: When residents know their identifying details will be permanently public, many may choose not to speak — especially those voicing unpopular views, vulnerable populations, renters, employees criticizing local policy, or those needing anonymity for safety.

• Uneven application: The policy appears to apply selectively (“some, not all speakers”), raising concerns about fairness and principle of consistent public-forum rules.

• Public comment closure + law enforcement involvement: The 7-0 vote to end public comment early, combined with law-enforcement presence when a speaker objected, heightens concerns that the civic forum is being restricted rather than expanded.

Call to Action

Civic organizations, residents, and the City Council MUST consider revisions such as:

• Requiring only a speaker’s name (and perhaps a neighborhood or ZIP code), not a full home address.

• Verifying residency privately (if needed) instead of publishing full address publicly.

• Allowing opt-out or partial-disclosure options for speakers who fear adverse consequences.

• Ensuring public comment sessions are not closed prematurely and that law-enforcement involvement is limited to clear disruptions, not speaking objections.

By adopting such adjustments, the city can protect privacy and promote free speech — making the public meeting truly open, safe, and inclusive.

"They use force to make you do what the deciders have decided you must do" - Rage against the Machine.

About the author:  Marcia Wilbur, a Norwich, Connecticut–based privacy and free speech advocate, writes about the intersection of technology, transparency, and civil liberties. Her past work includes: Volunteer at Electronic Frontier Foundation, Digital speech advisory committee member at the Free Software Foundation, developer of free and open source software privacy=centric AI tools for GNU Linux, presenter at Yale Law School, presenter at HOPE hacker conference in NYC and author of DMCA, A Decade of the DMCA and in your pocket - the DMCA. Marcia, advocate and previous candidate for mayor, was raised in Norwich, CT.