Serial Provocateur Sings Morrissey at Local Government Meeting While “Bongholeo” Opens With Lizzo Tune: Stream
A New Jersey township council meeting descended into an unusual spectacle this week when members of the public used their allotted public comment time to perform pop songs rather than raise civic concerns. The most prominent performer, 52-year-old William Thilly, sang Morrissey's 1994 hit "The More You Ignore Me, The Closer I Get" before being removed by police and charged with disrupting a meeting. The episode highlights ongoing tensions around public comment periods being used for provocative stunts.
The incident took place at a Cranford Township meeting on 7th July and was captured on a public access television broadcast later uploaded to YouTube. Thilly, described as a serial provocateur who went viral last year for breakdancing at a similar meeting, brought a small speaker and continued singing past his allotted time until officers dragged him out; he had earlier placed a sign reading "Refuse Govt. Abuse" on the podium and spoke against a lack of government transparency. He was not the only performer that night — a man dressed as a purple bong, calling himself "Bongholeo" and carrying a fake baby named "Bongholito", performed a version of Lizzo's "About Damn Time" with lyrics altered to reference smoking marijuana.
In short
- Man arrested for singing Morrissey at New Jersey council meeting.
- Serial provocateur William Thilly charged with disrupting the meeting.
- Another performer dressed as a bong sang altered Lizzo song.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Public comment periods serve a specific governmental function and require basic rules to function fairly. Time limits and behavioural standards ensure all citizens can meaningfully participate and that meetings remain efficient enough to conduct actual business. When individuals use their allotted time for extended performance stunts rather than substantive input, they prevent others from being heard and consume resources meant for civic governance. Enforcement of these rules is necessary and appropriate, not suppression of expression.
The case against
Public comment is fundamentally about giving ordinary citizens genuine access to their government, and unconventional forms of expression can be more effective than formal remarks at drawing attention to real concerns about government accountability and transparency. The performer here explicitly raised substantive grievances alongside his performance. Overly strict enforcement of conformity standards disadvantages those uncomfortable with formal procedures, treats public participation as mere bureaucratic ritual rather than authentic civic engagement, and risks chilling participation from citizens who feel their concerns warrant attention-grabbing methods.
Explained simply
Public comment periods at council meetings allow residents to address local officials about civic concerns. During a Cranford Township meeting in New Jersey in July, members of the public used their allocated speaking time to perform pop songs instead. A 52-year-old named William Thilly sang a Morrissey track and was removed by police and charged with disrupting the meeting; another performer dressed as a purple bong performed a Lizzo song with altered lyrics.
Thilly is known for staging provocative performances at such meetings and previously went viral for breakdancing at a similar event. On this night, he placed a sign about government transparency on the podium and sang past his allocated time. Other members of the public also used their speaking time in unconventional ways rather than raising council matters.
The incident highlights disagreement over how public comment periods should be used. These periods are designed for residents to raise local issues, but some argue that allowing disruptive performances undermines this purpose. How local authorities should manage public speaking time remains a subject of debate.