- Advertisement -

A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dealt a significant victory to the group Moms for Liberty in Brevard County, Florida. The case, Moms for Liberty – Brevard County, FL, et al. v. Brevard Public Schools, et al., centered on First Amendment issues concerning speech at Brevard County School Board meetings. The court found that several of the Board’s policies regarding public comments at its meetings were unconstitutional.

- Advertisement -

Moms for Liberty, along with individual plaintiffs, argued that their free speech rights were repeatedly violated during these meetings. Specifically, they challenged policies that prohibited “abusive,” “personally directed,” and “obscene” speech. They contended that the enforcement of these policies was inconsistent, vague, and in some cases, viewpoint-based, leading to a chilling effect on their ability to speak freely.

Former School Board Chairs Matt Susin and current Chair Megan Wright have continue to censor citizen’s speech since the lawsuit was filed, frequently stopping citizens from speaking during public comment. The only School Board member to publicly speak against the censorship was the only Democrat on the board, Jennifer Jenkins.

- Advertisement -

The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that the policies were unconstitutional. Circuit Judge Grant, writing for the majority, emphasized that while the government has the authority to maintain decorum in public meetings, such restrictions cannot be arbitrary, vague, or used to suppress particular viewpoints. The court was particularly critical of the vague definition of “abusive” speech, which it found had been used to silence speech deemed offensive rather than truly disruptive.

The court also struck down the rule prohibiting “personally directed” speech, noting that its inconsistent enforcement allowed the presiding officer too much discretion in deciding which comments to allow or interrupt. Although Brevard Public Schools had amended this rule during litigation, the court found that the earlier version of the policy still warranted relief for past harms suffered by the plaintiffs.

- Advertisement -