A proposed policy under consideration by the City of Fullerton is raising significant alarm among residents concerned about the potential implications for free speech and public discourse. The policy, which aims to limit the display and distribution of informational materials in city-owned facilities, could undermine the fundamental principles of democracy.
Historically, censorship has been a tool for suppressing dissenting voices, and many fear this new initiative may continue that troubling trend. The proposal is seen as a move to prioritize government-sanctioned materials, thereby narrowing the framework of acceptable ideas available to the community. This could not only distort public perception of information but also limit access to vital news sources necessary for an informed citizenry.
Public spaces are meant to facilitate diverse viewpoints. Advocates for free speech like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, are concerned that policies like the one proposed on the city council agenda for April 1, could restrict open expression and the importance of maintaining a variety of informational resources in civic spaces to reflect the community’s diverse perspectives.
Publications like the Fullerton Observer and the Daily Titan currently providing unique insights that resonate with various segments of the community. The Fullerton Observer has been at City Hall for over 40 years. Silencing these voices risks alienating residents and fails to represent the true diversity of thought within Fullerton.
In a recent communication from attorney Kelly Aviles on behalf of her client Fullerton’s Future, the blog that accessed sensitive City information and the City sued them over it, has formally requested permission from the City of Fullerton to install a newspaper rack in the lobby of City Hall. Supporters of free speech argue that initiatives like this should be welcomed, as they enhance public discourse rather than hinder it. Denial of such requests may lead not only to potential legal challenges but also to perceptions that the city is unjustly limiting residents’ access to information.
In the letter addressed to the City Manager, Eric Levitt, Aviles emphasized the significance of creating an alternate news source for Fullerton residents. She noted that a “local businessman” has committed to supporting the financial launch of this endeavor and mentioned plans to file for 501(c)(4) status with the IRS soon. Who could it be? Maybe the“local businessman” associated with the blog, Anthony “Tony” Bushala?
On the Fullerton Future blog that posted the letter from their attorney, they concluded with this statement, “Of course, deploying an attorney suggests we mean business and might have to use legal redress if our request were to be denied. Why? Because the City currently permits the distorted and warped Fullerton Observer access to City premises.”
However, the City is drafting a new policy regarding displaying and distributing materials in city-owned facilities. This proposed policy outlines guidelines concerning the type of informational materials permitted, their locations, and the approval process, ensuring that public areas remain organized and that the City’s non-public forum status is upheld.
The City Council initiated this policy update to clarify the standards for using public spaces in city facilities. According to city officials, maintaining these locations free from unmanaged distribution of private or non-governmental materials is essential. The policy stipulates that only government and select educational materials may be displayed in facility lobbies and public areas, with certain exceptions for non-governmental materials allowed on the Main community corkboard, subject to space and time constraints.
The guidelines also specify material format requirements—for instance, brochures or flyers must not exceed 8.5 inches by 14 inches—and all materials must identify the responsible governmental or qualifying agency. Approval will rest with the Public Information Officer or the Library Director, with the City Manager overseeing appeals for denied requests. Furthermore, the proposed policy reinforces that city facilities remain non-public forums, allowing city staff to remove unauthorized materials without notice and absolving the City of any liability for loss or damage to those materials.
As Fullerton navigates the balance between the free distribution of information and maintaining order in public spaces, the blog’s initiative is likely to prompt further discussions within the City Council regarding access to information shared with residents and concerns over free speech. The outcome of this request will determine whether publications like the Fullerton Observer—a 47-year-old all-volunteer newspaper—and the student-run CSUF newspaper, the Daily Titan, among other local publications, will be permitted to distribute materials at City Hall, the community center, police station, fire stations, and libraries.
This is item 14 on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, April 1, 2025, at 5:30 pm. Upcoming agenda information and streaming video of meetings are available at http://www.cityoffullerton.com click on meetings and agenda. City Hall is located at 303 W. Commonwealth, Fullerton. Contact Council at (714) 738-6311 or council@cityoffullerton.com.
Grab your popcorn cause it will no doubt be quite a show if previous city council meetings are any indication, And remember the caffeine because it will probably be a long night. Of course, you can always participate from your couch by calling in or ZOOM in. Download the agenda with all the details and rules of how to participate here: https://fullerton.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx.
Read stories about Blog here:
- The City of Fullerton v. FFFF Blog
- Appeals Court Halts City’s Restraining Order Against Local Blog
- City Council Votes to Settle Lawsuit Against Fullerton’s Future Blog
Other sources:
Voice of OC:
- Fullerton Resident Challenges Judge’s Decision to Block Publishing of Secret City Hall Documents
- Put Up or Shut Up: Court Warns Fullerton Officials Must Prove Bloggers Stole Secret Documents
KTLA:
Fullerton to Pay 350k to Settle Lawsuit Against Bloggers, Take Back Criminal Hacking Accusations
Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press:
City of Fullerton v. Friends for Fullerton’s Future
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Education, Local Government, Local News
Of course this is purely an attack on The Observer by Fiends for Fullerton’s Failure.
The most comical thing is that the Bushalites sent their legal threats before even showing up with their threatened free paper! Doesn’t exist. How dare their non existent paper not be carried too! There is no controversy so they don’t have standing to do anything but send worthless lawyer nastygrams.
The city should just create a policy that of course includes free community papers with a standard definition. In existence for more than 6 months, circulation, #pages, paper of record type info, etc.
Existence is key. Lol.
Does Jung genuinely not understand that Tony Bushala is not, in fact, emperor of Fullerton?
Great article but one clarification – the city sued FFFF blogger Ferguson accusing him of hacking the city dropbox and accessing files – but that happened because a city employee gave the key to the blogger and he grabbed info set aside in the city attorney’s folder that had his name on it. So no hacking took place and the city lost the case and had to settle.
In the interests of preserving the free distribution of community based news publications on city properties I suggest that the Fullerton Observer and the Friends for Fullerton’s Future issue a joint statement in opposition to this proposed city policy.
The fiends for Fullerton’s failure manufactured this problem. Given they don’t even have a paper it seems likely this was their desired outcome.
The city is being manipulated by litigious trolls.
The city banning community publications from the Public Library and Community Center does not make sense. Those are public spaces and the more the merrier. I can understand why elected officials might like to ban – from city hall – publications that contain reports of public criticism of their actions – though banning the 47-year-old local town newspaper and the college papers seems inappropriate – especially in reaction to threat from a non-existent publication.
Why does the Bushala family owning a bunch of ugly railroad property make them think they own the entire city?
Maybe you should have played nice with the public you claim to represent but labeled as “Trolls”.
You are right, Mike, that the truthful reports in the Observer exposing what they are doing with their big money made them mad. They would like the 47-year-old town newspaper to go away. But, you are wrong about the Observer labeling them as trolls – they came up with that nickname for their anonymous comments on their own – as you know.