How to Break a City’s Flag Policy (Legally) Using FOI

A Case Study from New Britain, Connecticut

Cities love free speech—until it gets uncomfortable.

New Britain raised a Christian flag over City Hall. When I requested to raise a different flag, the city didn’t debate theology or law. It reached for bureaucracy: resident-only rules, “no controversial flags”, and public safety vibes.

That’s fine. Bureaucracy cuts both ways.

So instead of arguing, I filed a targeted Freedom of Information request against the policy itself.

This post explains why that works, how it works, and how you can replicate it.

The Problem: Policies That Sound Neutral but Aren’t

New Britain’s flag policy claims neutrality. In practice, it gives officials unchecked discretion to decide which viewpoints are “acceptable.”

Here’s the tell:

• “Inappropriate”
• “Offensive”
• “Controversial”
• “Harmful to peace or public safety”

None of those terms are defined. That’s not accidental. That’s a filter, not a standard.

Once a city allows private groups to raise flags, it risks creating a public forum. In that setting, government officials don’t get to curate comfort. They get neutrality—or nothing.

The REVOLT Rule: Don’t Argue the Policy. Audit It.

Most people respond emotionally:

• Angry emails
• Public comment rants
• Social media threads

All noise. No leverage.

REVOLT teaches something else:

Written policy is theater. Operational reality leaves records.

So the move is simple:

• Stop debating intent
• Start demanding artifacts
• Force the city into provable positions

That’s what FOI is for.

The FOI Objective (This Matters)

The goal is not transparency.
The goal is outcomes.

This FOI was engineered to answer four questions only:

1. Who asked to raise flags?
2. Which flags were approved or denied?
3. Why were they approved or denied—in writing?
4. Did officials discuss viewpoint, controversy, or public reaction?

If the city can’t answer those cleanly, the policy collapses.

What the FOI Targets

The request to the City of New Britain demands:

• All flag-raising requests (multi-year window)
• Approval vs. denial outcomes
• Written justifications for denials
• Internal emails discussing flag content or optics
• Enforcement of the residency requirement
• Any guidance defining “controversial” or “offensive”

No fishing. No broad language. Just decision artifacts.

Why This Puts the City in a Box

There are only three possible responses. All are bad for them.

Outcome 1: They Produce the Records

Now you compare approved flags to denied ones. If ideology tracks approval, that’s viewpoint discrimination.

Outcome 2: They Admit No Written Standards Exist

That’s arbitrary enforcement—a constitutional problem by itself.

Outcome 3: They Withhold Reasons or Records

That’s an evidentiary admission. Courts don’t love “trust us” when speech is involved.

This is why we don’t argue first. We document first.

This Is Not About One Flag

That’s the mistake cities keep making.

This is about whether local governments can:

• Invite private expression
• Then screen it for comfort
• While calling the result “neutral”

They can’t. And FOI is how you prove it without guessing.

The REVOLT Takeaway

If a policy dies when exposed to sunlight, it was never lawful—just untested.
FOI isn’t paperwork. It’s pressure engineering.

And once you learn to use it properly, cities stop saying “no” casually—because every “no” leaves a trail.

Want to Learn This System?

This exact approach—FOI as leverage, not paperwork—is taught step by step inside System Failure Boot Camp.

No chanting.
No performative outrage.
Just results.

If you want to force policy change instead of asking politely, you already know where to find us.