Palm Bay, FL – The Palm Bay City Council voted last night to reconsider its policy prohibiting the broadcasting of public comment segments during meetings. This decision comes against a backdrop of ongoing debates about transparency, legal risks, and First Amendment rights in Brevard County, where similar issues have recently played out in school board meetings.
- Advertisement -
Origins of the Palm Bay Broadcasting Policy
The Palm Bay policy originated from a May 2, 2025, council decision, where members voted 3-2 to cease broadcasting the non-agenda public comment portion of meetings. Concerns cited included potential violations of FCC regulations and HIPAA during unscripted remarks, as raised by Deputy Mayor Jaffe. Supporters argued that halting broadcasts mitigated legal risks, given that sessions are streamed online rather than over traditional airwaves. Critics, however, decried it as a setback for open government, restricting access for residents unable to attend in person and potentially muting community voices.
The issue has lingered, with residents repeatedly calling for reversal. Local media have attempted to fill the void by recording and sharing parts of public comments from sessions like the July 3, 2025, meeting. When available, The Space Coast Rocket has live-broadcasted public comments at the Brevard Public School Board meetings who have also stopped broadcasting public comments.
- Advertisement -
The July 17 Council Meeting: A Push for Reconsideration
At last night’s meeting, Mayor Rob Medina initiated the discussion, referencing persistent public demands to reinstate broadcasting. He cited section 7.9.14 of the council’s policies, which discourages reconsidering issues acted upon within the past year but allows it via majority vote to schedule for a future agenda. Medina, who voted against the original policy, asked colleagues: “I’m asking council, is there a majority that would request to bring this back for reconsideration?”
Councilman Kenny Johnson voiced support, saying, “I’m in support of bringing back the cameras… I’ve heard what I needed to hear… I’m good with moving forward.” He alluded to a prior reconsideration involving Councilman Bailey that failed after new details emerged. Councilman Michael Hammer agreed, noting, “I would also be in support of bringing it back… and I would actually like to see some things to make it a little better.”
- Advertisement -
Mayor Medina then called for a motion. Johnson moved to schedule the reconsideration, seconded by Medina. The roll call vote was:
Deputy Mayor Jaffe: No
Councilman Johnson: Aye
Councilman Hammer: Aye
Councilman Langevin: Nay
Mayor Medina: Aye
Parallels in Brevard County: The School Board’s Response to a First Amendment Lawsuit
The Palm Bay debate echoes recent events with the Brevard County School Board, which adjusted its broadcasting practices following a First Amendment lawsuit loss to Moms for Liberty. The suit, filed in 2021, challenged the board’s public comment policies restricting “abusive,” “personally directed,” or “obscene” speech, claiming they chilled free expression.
Initial court rulings in 2022 and 2023 favored the board, deeming the policies constitutional. However, in October 2024, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the policies violated the First Amendment by discriminating based on viewpoint and overbroadly restricting speech. This led to a January 17, 2025, federal judge’s temporary restraining order halting enforcement of the policies.
In response, at their January 2025 meeting, the board split public comments: agenda-related portions continued to be broadcasted, while non-agenda comments were not, to comply with the order while mitigating risks like unregulated speech leading to legal issues. This adjustment stemmed from fears of broadcasting potentially harmful content without the now-invalidated restrictions, similar to Palm Bay’s cited concerns over FCC and HIPAA violations. Earlier, in 2023, the board had considered ceasing broadcasts amid book challenge laws (HB 1069), but the lawsuit outcome accelerated changes.
Does Not Broadcasting Public Comments Violate the First Amendment in Florida?
The question of whether Florida government entities violate the First Amendment by not broadcasting public comments online or on television is nuanced. Under the First Amendment, there’s no absolute right requiring governments to broadcast meetings; the core protection ensures public access to attend and speak, not necessarily remote viewing. Florida’s Sunshine Law mandates open meetings but doesn’t require broadcasting.
However, if non-broadcasting is motivated by content-based censorship—e.g., to suppress dissenting views—it could infringe on free speech rights. Courts have upheld that government restraint on expression must be viewpoint-neutral. In the Brevard School Board case, the issue was restrictive policies, not broadcasting per se. Similarly, FCC rules prohibit censoring broadcasts but don’t mandate them. Thus, while not inherently a violation, selective non-broadcasting could invite legal challenges if it limits public discourse without justification.
As Palm Bay prepares for reconsideration, this could set a precedent for balancing transparency with legal safeguards in Florida municipalities. Residents are encouraged to attend upcoming sessions for further developments on broadcasting public comments and First Amendment implications.
