wilson you is where you talk to us about the issue of dave wilson who initially was elected to houston community college for a six year term his term has expired after his term is sorry let me just use a unity college is governed by its bylaws and its trustees are governed by its code of conduct during his tenure and using community college day wilson had criticized other members of the board for their conduct for example he criticized the funding of a college campus located in the country of qatar he criticized the building or the attempted building of a campus that was outside houston community college he criticized other board members during the boardman meeting where they allowed another trustee who wasn't present at the board meeting to vote via skype when the bylaws clearly required that board member to be presen mechanisms in which he criticized board members was openly he gave interviews to the media and he initiated robo calls those were the mechanisms he filed to lawsuits to correct the behavior of other trustees it used in community college  and he hired a private detective to follow up to follow another board member around under the guise that she misrepresented her residency where he believed that she was not eligible to hold office so some of the code of ethics that exist that govern the trustees that are of clickable here and i won't read every one of them but i'll read a couple of them was the trustees are have a duty and are encouraged to engage in open and honest discussions they're required to respect the difference in opinions of other trustees they're required to respect the board's collective decision making process well after all we're going to say several years of to go one of the agenda items was to go forward and execute a resolution of censure now this resolution of censure what it would do it would further define and c's code of conduct and then apply that and find that wilson violated these codes of conduct through the exercise of his free speech i don't need to go read the whole resolution of censure but the very st paragraph kind of hits the nail on the head it's resolution of censure where wills where as d houston community college board of trustees member mr david wilson used public media to criticize other board members for taking positions differ from his own including on april th two thousand and seventeen robocall it initiated by mr wilson to the constituents of other d board members and to on april th two thousand and seventeen interview with a local radio station in which he identified board members who voted in favor of a transaction that he was opposed and he cues those board members up not representing the people in their district in doing so mr wilson has demonstrated a lack of respect for the board members collect failing to state a claim basically the central issue of the case was that the injury mr wilson complained of accepting everything in his pleadings is true did not rise to the level to trigger a j p court judge who had complaining d that the county officials were summarily dismissing traffic tickets when they got to the county level when he complained and criticized the county officials the commission d for judicial conduct sent him a letter which constituted either was a public reprimand or a public censure they go back and forth so many times i lose the distinguishment but it is it  public center of reprimand that requested that he cease this conduct now that the things that are let me also if you make comment on jennings be williams jennings be williams or willing it was another judge who held a press conference and in the press conference after the press conference various people complained to the commission of judicial conduct and the commission of judicial conduct sent him a letter that centered reprimanded him for his conduct and both of these cases the fist circuit court of appeals summarily saw an elected official exercising a st amendment right and being center in the court and both of these cases really didn't dive into the more of the dynamics of either one of those cases but it's a merrily said it touched on one's first d amendment rights and therefore it is sufficient to trigger v and in the actual standard is whether a defendant's actions cause them to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that in that activity that's the standard recognized by the fist circuit going back at least as far as two thousand and two and when you look at followed by one of the canons and said the conduct of this judge violated this canon of judicial conduct it judy k did in doing so finding a violation and then sent a letter d a century or reprimand saying you're not to do this anymore impliedly in both scotland flowers and the genevieve case the court found as a matter of  law that that reprimand shields an ordinary perk a person's right of free speech it would deter him from continuing to engage in that activity it forces us to look at the very nature of what a public reprimand or a public center is and in wilson's case what it is it amounts to a disciplinary action it says you violated a rule you violated a statu way i don't think it's necessary that the court find that the commission additional conduct the fact that they had the authority to remove these people as a judge from engaging in this conduct i don't think our law requires us to go that deep i think the law requires us to go d only deep enough to show that the conduct of the commission of just of conduct or the board for a t c tend write a letter that rises to the level that it would deter wilson or person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that in that activity i think both the disk commission for to sell product and the legislative body for a t c has that same power obviously the board of a t c cannot remove him from office but what they did is they sanctioned him they took away his right to reimbursement of travel expenses they they impaired his rights community funds and they said you cannot hold an office within the board for the next year all those things and in there in the resolution of censure are terrorized as a disciplinary action it finds guilt and it sanctioned him it goes beyond just exercising free speech it actually sanctioned him to defer to strip him of other privileges that other members had not only that the censure said if you keep doing this because imposing penalties on speech chills the exercise of st amendment and thereby produces a result that the dig up that the government ten not command directly that's why the law is the way it is also in kenya in this st circuit court of appeals also address the same issue regarding d the level of injur sufficient to trigger a st amendment protection this court wrote the effect on freedom of speech may be small but since there is no justification for harassing people for the exercise of their because he actually the resolution of censure did not stop him from engaging in free speech and did not stop him from voting lack of standing because the appellant could not show an invasion of legally protected and you run the court below did not cite this case on the basis of legislative beauty but i think it's just important for this court to consider it it was fully the reasoning on legislative the unity is particularly appropriate here that court noted that americans at the founding in after understood the powers to punish members as a legislative power inherent in even the humblest assembly of men the court recognized that because citizens cannot shoot legislative bodies were legislate the word legislative bodies are left to police their own members to make orderly operations possible in such efforts must be free of judicial in affairs in texas your honor trust deeds do not have the ability to remove their row trustees from off no matter how much they may find their views of warrant sensual is about the only tool that they have to express disapproval of a trust that will not comply with their rules of governance their standards of ethics the court and were noted white or noted absent truly exceptional circumstances it would be strange to hold that suc self policing itself is actionable in court and the court of expression rejected the st amendment claim in that case stating well it was arguably discipline for speech it was legislative speech what do you do with the use versus term county from this court in we said that there was no legislative immunity where the particular action by the legislature voting was directed a with employment speech and we're tallying ation by the government against employees we have a different time text when the government would tell you it's private citizens but we have a unique time taps when we have members of a political body that take action against one of their own are you saying that he uses wrongly decided i didn't mean in that respect to the extent that it would suggest d it were  motions willing and the flowers decisions in those are an apple should because they are different concepts in those cases they did not involve d legislative action taken by peers in a political arena in they did not another reason that it also sets the standard in this which is the point that the trial court did find is that there was no actionable line st amendment and that's because different than what was efforts to retaliate against a council member outside the public unlike europe where we're just talking about a vote of censure which is nothing more than a collective expression of speech from the majority condemning the speech of a member in the vote in dissension compared to a majority vote as the trial court found there is no evidence d that he was on able to do any of those sections and i think the porch they have looked at this issue in this responsibilities that they wore a letter in that case you may remember the u s supreme court struck down the georgia similes refusal to even seat an elected assembly member because they didn't believe that would suggest to the court that what mr wilson was attempting to do you know don't you imagine that is where his ability to do his job with his travel expenses that he might otherwise have or were taken away or that his right to become an officer i assume that means chairman vice chairman are or some other officer of the board were taken away those those directly affect he's ability to engage in his  our sort of steady stream of false accusations and vehement criticisms that any politician must be expected to endure d a politician who is having to respond to collective speech disapprov of his viewpoint that is something a politician is expected to endure in colson what the court said the chilling of the speech is not enough there's gotta be more in terms of the deprivation of it in that with the truck will essentially sound here that even if all the things that mr wilson said were true they did with the actual retaliation in the context of a legislative body dealing with it i thought adverse action plaintiff is challenging was taken by peers in the political arena that context matters the core went on bush more is fair intellectual politics than in other contexts it is common for political bodies to have internal leadership struggle for members of those bodies to be openly partisan in voting for and against one another for leadership positions and i think that directly ensures your question judge smith about what about the fact that he was not eligible to attain a seat well obtaining a board see is the decision of the board acting in political matter because they are choosing their leaders who adhere to the majority as views about the direction of the institution it is inherently a policy choice mr wilson wasn't removed mr wilson's your loss of the ability to be considered by his peers as a board officer wouldn't rise to the level of the constitution free speech does not guard against any form of political backlash that might arise out of the every day squabbles of hardball politics if this war or two into tame mr wilson's  that had any individual trustee made the same condemning statements regarding mr wilson there with the only the only argument that i've heard so why as stated in our brief that the commission could take actions that jeopardized the livelihood of these judges ability to practice they could sanction them and reprimand them in ways that further action could even lead to a recommendation from their removal from office essential is really no more than what it says it is it's simply the majority's expression of the tomtom nation against individual that power by the way criticizes him through censure they've gone to fall individual trustees continue to criticize ringback but if they do it collectively they go too far the punishment that he is really concerned about is simply that th retaliation an act of retaliation in the form of a punishment or an expression of speech like you might find in any employment context or you might find in  walling a private citizen you're having the punishment the speech speech in response to the speech and that's why i think legislative immunity is appropriate in this particular context involving this court was right to stay his hand for that reason and beat him he simply said that this type of speech is not actionable because it didn't prove that  walk out of the board meeting and convene a press conference as he was known to do and blast the board because he thought that the resolution of censure with fear to him but it doesn't change the fact that it's petitions against her threaten criminal actions they recognize all that may chill her speech but they said that is not enough why because she still was able to function as a councilwoman to attend board meetings and t their briefing talks a lot about the fact that they've alleged in language images well the allegation of a remedy in and of itself doesn't establish the constitution  or you know in white rule courts while the plaintiff in that case was arguably disciplined for speech it was legislative speech which is protected from an executive or the united states judicial interference but i have told them that even if they have the most maverick of trustees that there are a limited rights to address a maverick trustee who doesn't comply with bylaws doesn't in gauge with him an appropriate discussion isn't limited well your honor i think that because that there is no punishment that comes with that that should please their expressing their opinions that we want you to stop criticizing us because we think your criticisms are wrong fair so that's simply a because in washington there are generalized standards of conduct against an individual they d are publicly expressing their or here it's to their their policies and standards for how they govern them and so in that sense while i  thank you i'd like to address the rebuttal read with regards to age she sees argument free speech the government's entitle to it the legislators are entitled to it and everybody is entitled to so there can't be any harm that was his position the difference is when a she see trustee acts as an individual in his individual capacity he has virtually no power he speaks as an ordinary citizen not cloaked with all d the authority vested d in him by cheesy board of trustees they gather together and they vote not to express an opinion because they could probably express an opinion say i don't like they will say and he said this that or the other thing but they didn't do that what the board did as a governmental entity was interpret one of its codes of conduct it said david wilson violated a code of conduct he is guilty of violating it and then they start to enforce it that is rises above way beyond the level of let's everybody exercise or free speech day wilson sued challenging the code of conduct he said these code of conduct as it was applied by in this resolution d of censure made these rules of conduct unconstitutional because i'm not free or i am not respecting the decisions of my fellow board members if i openly criticizing he said this code is unconstitutional d because it's repugnant to the st amendment that goes way beyond age she sees contention we agree that someone kid offered their believes that if if the criticisms are false then i believe that the board would have a remedy if the criticisms are true and then it may just be the exercise of his st amendment right if his criticisms if it's purely speech and not conduct then is protected but actually no freedom of speech has its limitations as it is it freedom of speech if it's just false allegations that arises to defend the tory conduct of the st amendment has its limitations here we didn't sue the a t c is for their legislative actions halls municipalities liable for their unconstitutional acts designating and holding that age she sees code of conduct as age she sees board interpret it is repugnant to the constitution  does not rise or is not limited to freedom of speech it goes way beyond that they adopted a whole thing enforce the rule and the rule is repugnant and as applied to mr wilson he suffered a constitutional injury to that extent