BUCYRUS, OH (CRAWFORD COUNTY NOW)—What might typically be a routine city council meeting is turning into a battleground of cyberbullying and general bad behavior during live broadcasts on Facebook. As the Bucyrus City Council conducts its business, an average of over 5,700 viewers tune in to the live stream, a notable figure considering the city’s population of 11,542 as of 2023.
While many viewers participate constructively, a significant number have taken to the comments section to insult speakers and council members, targeting their appearance and weight. This behavior has escalated to direct threats, prompting police reports and calls for disabling comments altogether.
One particularly harsh comment regarding a former councilwoman stated, “Honestly, I think it’s bull. Shireman is unhinged. There will come a time when she lashes out and does physical harm to someone.”
In a direct threat made by a perceived fake account, city officials are finding it difficult to trace its origins:
“Something major is gonna break on [name removed]. I hope you have good health insurance.”
During a recent council meeting on March 4, there were 237 comments, many stemming from ongoing exchanges between the same individuals.
The negativity is not exclusive to Bucyrus; other cities have faced similar challenges. For instance, Galion has disabled comments on its council feeds, beginning after Mayor O’Leary halted negative commentary during his “Mondays With The Mayor” segment on Facebook. Mansfield is another city that does not permit comments on its live feed.
Crawford County Now reached out to Marion Law Director Mark Russell, who noted that while the city administration provides Facebook Live access, there is no legal requirement to enable comments during public meeting broadcasts, similar to C-SPAN and Ohio Legislature practices.
Bucyrus Law Director Brandon Gobrecht expressed concerns about the balance between free speech and maintaining respectful discourse. He stated:
“I believe the City administration is working on a solution that won’t expose us to legal liability. It is a little disheartening that in one breath I am told my responses are “insufficient,” and in the next breath, folks don’t pay attention to the lengthy explanation I gave at the meeting regarding the comments. In the report, I explained that we can, and should, moderate the calls to violence and overly obscene comments because doing so serves a “compelling governmental interest.” It gets dicey when we shut comments off because of the content of the comments. It, on its face, seems like content-neutral moderation subject to the “important governmental interest” level of scrutiny. However, like I mentioned in my report, the Courts have gotten wise to government bodies pretending to moderate something as “content neutral” when in reality it is intended to be content-specific, which triggers the higher level of scrutiny by the Courts. I recommended that we can either shut the Facebook livestream off entirely, which we are legally allowed to do, or moderate comments to the fullest extent we are allowed to moderate them. At the end of the day, reasonable minds may differ on the law, and I am but an advisor to the City.” — Brandon Gobrecht
As Bucyrus navigates these challenges, one thing remains clear: the debate over how to handle online engagement during city council meetings continues, with no definitive legal resolution in sight.
Despite the negativity, the increased engagement and viewership indicate a strong community interest in local government.