Florida appeals court: Public doesn't have right to speak at public meetings

The thread tittle pretty much says it all. A FL appeals court has ruled that the public doesn't have the right to speak and public meetings.

Flo rida appeals court: Public doesn't have right to speak at public meetings

Government meetings have to be open to the public, but that doesn't mean citizens have a right to speak at them, a Florida appeals court ruled today.

A 1st District Court of Appeal cited previous Florida Supreme Court rulings that “The public has no authority to participate in or to interfere with the decision-making process.”

Pensacola activists filed suit against Community Maritime Park Associates, saying the board's decisions about a $40 million museum and waterfront park should be nullified because public-comment periods at its meetings were inadequate.

An Escambia County Circuit Court judge threw out the lawsuit a year ago. LeRoy Boyd and Byron Keesler appealed to the 1st District Court of Appeal, which today upheld the lower court's summary judgment dismissal of the case.

Well, that's pretty clear. Now the citizens of FL can listen to their government, but their government doesn't have to listen to them.

It sounds like perhaps you should make them listen. Government should be an extension of the will of the people, not separate from them.

reply to post by Frogs


I completely agree with their ruling.
We have a right to police protection - do we also have a right to ride in the passengers seat?

If everyone was allowed to speak at these meetings, then the entire meeting would consist of idiotic bickering of left & right wing talking points being thrown back and forth from idiot #1 and idiot #2 after each just gone done watching Fox News & MSNBC

We already have enough of THAT from our current system

why add more stupidity to the mix?

Apparently it is now convenient, perhaps even vogue, to no longer follow the letter of our founding documents which provide for a "Redress of grievances".

Government was founded to be REPRESENTATIVE of the will of the people - not the will of those elected. This trend of treating the electorate as hoi poloi and unwashed masses is likely to lead to great civil unrest. I urge the "politicians" to proceed with caution and remeber who they work for!

If I went to work and didn't listen to my bosses I would get fired. These guys get reelected and give themselves pay raises.

Great system we have, eh, where they don't even have to listen to their bosses.

I think we all got the message when the college kid was tased for trying to ask a question, and then "allowed" to apologize for it.



Can't this thing be appealed, or modified somehow to allow for redress of grievances if the public has concerns or questions?

We shouldn't have to feel inferior for not being able to affect a system when that system is designed to keep us out. We are not children, and even they grow up eventually.

It can be discouraging to be talked about like fools and idiots (on TV shows, etc. targeting Americans and their so-called lifestyle), but to be treated that way openly by our own government is sickening.

Wonder why so many people have ulcers....repressed expressions that continue to be repressed end up as pressure in the stomach, or neck, etc.

We were taught that ours was the best country because of freedom of speech, protection from religious or racial persecution, and representative government.

This ruling should be challenged legally, and we will continue the fight for democracy where it most needs to be fought, right here on our own soil, inside our own system. Otherwise, we see how it is going.

There are remedies built into the system, if only lawyers will take the cause and fight for us. Let's hope.

I am fairly certain that this ruling will be appealed.

Primarily the argument (if I may presume to wax legal for a second) should originate from the reality that the local government's decision-making authority DERIVES from the public, and therefore no community process can be insulated from public input.

Furthermore, the Judge's ruling seems archaic and counter-intuitive to the spirit of the law, and I bet he or she knows it.

Business (aka corporate) activities in pursuit of their 'rights' will take a beating over this. They cannot win without disenfranchising the entire community. Why do I suspect that the business in question will not be headquartered locally?

Of course, this is assuming that there isn't some other shocking distraction from the event. Or if the business interests have enough clout to convince the local government to evoke 'Eminent Domain" as was done in Connecticut some time ago.

It is true that if you have a crowd gathered to address the matter, the entire crowd will want to be heard. But you know what? It's their community that the businessmen are trying to exploit... perhaps using the courts and a one-sided system is not going to work in an America that believed as they were taught as children, they believe they have standing and rights and that no small cluster of people should be allowed to decide without their consent or input in the matter.

Sounds like a local ballot issue - don't you think?

The Judge is evidently a throwback to the days of "good ol' boys" and once or twice-removed business deals to get things done. News flash: Disney is dead.

reply to post by TheLoony


politicians do listen to their boses, it is the politicians above them

until people begin to see that the "population" means nothing to government, that you can vote a new group in (for they control all elections and choose the winner they want)-
when you see that for hundreds of years the system has pulled the wool over your eyes, only then might people realize

don't change politicans
change the entire system

reply to post by TheLoony

These guys get reelected and give themselves pay raises.

They get re-elected because we vote for them.

Kind of masochistic in nature, wouldn't you say?

reply to post by kozmo

Government was founded to be REPRESENTATIVE of the will of the people

Exactly - they were selected, by us, to represent them. That doesn't mean they have to pop a squat every single time one of us has a grievance.

They were elected to represent us TO the government, not to be your personal psychiatrist.

“The public has no authority to participate in or to interfere with the decision-making process.”

to me, that sounds like the public has no right to vote