Several Columbia residents are using a time-tested tactic — civil disobedience — to protest ordinances and contracts they say are violating people’s rights and privacy.
In recent months, protesters in Columbia have specifically targeted the city’s median ordinance and its contract with Flock Safety, which provides police surveillance cameras.
The city’s median ordinance states that pedestrians who stand on a narrow median for two light cycles or cross intersections at a location other than a marked crosswalk are in violation of it. The ordinance was approved by the Columbia City Council in February despite objections from numerous residents who said it was a thinly veiled attack on panhandlers and the city’s homeless population.
In 2024, the City Council signed a contract with Flock Safety and authorized the implementation of cameras around the city. Police departments across the country sometimes use Flock Safety cameras to find suspects and solve crimes, but there have also been some reported instances of police abuse of the technology.
Protesters deliberately violate median ordinance
When Columbia’s median ordinance went into effect on July 1, several protesters purposefully loitered on medians around the city. They said they did so because they wanted to challenge the ordinance in court.
According to the Columbia Police Department, at least six citations have been given out in the two months since the ordinance went into effect.
Four of those citations went to the people who protested against the ordinance on July 1.
Jeff Stack was one of them. Stack said Margaret McConnell and Dirk Burhans, who also received citations, first brought up the idea to him and asked if he would be willing to help out with a nonviolence training workshop.
“They wanted to challenge the city ordinance, believing it to be unconstitutional and unjust, singling out poor people, trying to punish them for panhandling,” Stack said.
Stack is a coordinator for the Mid-Missouri Fellowship of Reconciliation, which is an interfaith pacifist group, and said the organization has hosted civil disobedience and nonviolence training workshops for decades.
Stack said protesters hope the ordinance will eventually be found unconstitutional through the courts.
University of Missouri journalism professor Jared Schroeder has expertise in freedom of expression and the First Amendment. He said if the government wants to restrict speech in a certain place based on time, place or manner, it has to pass a four-part test.
The test includes reviewing if the government has a valid reason for restricting speech in a certain location; if the ordinance is written in such a way that it only addresses the problem the government is trying to solve; if the ordinance is content-based; and if it leaves other ways for people to exercise their right to freedom of speech.
Amy Kristin Sanders, a professor of First Amendment studies at Pennsylvania State University, said the ordinance does impact people’s ability to publicly express their opinions. However, because there are other ways for people to exercise free speech, such as protesting on sidewalks, she said she does not think the courts would entertain a challenge to this ordinance for very long.
“Typically, when we see that there’s no restrictions solely based on the viewpoint of the speech, and when there’s a valid health, safety and welfare justification, these kinds of restrictions almost always are upheld as constitutional by the courts,” Sanders said.
The city has said the ordinance is intended to maintain safety, while protesters say the ordinance restricts freedom of speech and harms homeless people and those who want to panhandle.
“If it’s simply a matter of, ‘We don’t want homeless people on the medians,’ or ‘We don’t want panhandlers on the medians,’ that’s probably not going to pass the test,” Schroeder said. “But if the city can successfully argue that it’s a public safety issue, it could pass the test, so it comes down to how it’s interpreted.”
Dan Viets, the president of the Mid-Missouri Civil Liberties Association board, said he has agreed to represent McConnell in court. Viets said he does not believe that it is the government’s role to “protect us from ourselves.”
“I think the real purpose of this ordinance is number one, to keep homeless people out of sight, and number two, to suppress First Amendment exercise,” Viets said. “I always get suspicious when the government says, ‘We’re going to prosecute you for your own good.’”
Anti-Flock protests come to Columbia
Opponents of Flock Safety cameras and other surveillance technology have blocked the view of the cameras using signs or other means, both locally and nationally. In other cities, cameras have been damaged.
Some Columbia residents have organized a group called Get the Flock Out of CoMo. The group works to spread awareness about Flock cameras, persuade the city to end its contract with Flock and protect residents against surveillance technology.
Dominic O’Connor, who is a tattoo artist at the Electric Peacock, protested against Flock cameras on Monday. He stood at the corner of East Broadway and North Providence Road with a homemade sign on a long pole to block the Flock camera at the location. He was arrested for resisting arrest before being released on bond.
“When I first found out about Flock cameras existing four months ago, I was instantly enraged that this wasn’t a big deal right off the bat,” O’Connor said. “I work in Columbia every single day, and it just doesn’t feel right being watched everywhere I go just because I have to work and shop.”
O’Connor expressed opposition to police misuse of the cameras and privacy violations of children, pedestrians and Columbia residents.
He said he plans to hold a sale for anti-Flock tattoos starting next week, and will also leave out a bucket for donations that will go to Columbia residents in need.
“I’m very excited to meet all of my new supporters and clients,” O’Connor said. “I can’t wait to tattoo all of you with my new legal way of protesting.”