A recent meeting of the Titusville Board of Adjustments and Appeals has sparked renewed debate over how local governments handle citizens’ First Amendment rights during public proceedings.
At the April 23, 2025 meeting, Titusville resident Elizabeth Baker was removed by police after quietly holding a small sign that read, “We live here, we decide.” The sign was silent, handheld, and non-disruptive. Nevertheless, Board Chairman Al Taylor ordered Baker to put it away and, when she asserted her constitutional right to peaceful expression, instructed Titusville Police officers to escort her out of the meeting room.
The removal immediately drew concern from attendees. Chairman Taylor called a five-minute recess shortly afterward. During the break, numerous residents exited the chamber to check on Baker, some voicing objections directly to board members and to City Assistant Attorney Chelsea Farrell, who was present at the meeting.
While Baker was still in the hallway, Farrell informed her that no city policy prohibited holding a sign and that she would be permitted to re-enter the meeting with it. When Baker returned to the room, she was met with applause from the audience.
Once the meeting resumed, Chairman Taylor acknowledged his error on the official record and issued a public apology.
For some attendees, the acknowledgment was appreciated. Others, however, viewed it as insufficient. Critics argue that the constitutional violation occurred the moment Baker was removed and that a later correction does not undo the harm. Legal analysts have long noted that courts have consistently held that non-disruptive expressive conduct, such as silent signs, is protected speech in public forums.
The incident also drew attention from Brevard County Commissioner Katie Delaney, who attended the meeting and raised the issue with officers present at the time.
Concerns about the April 23 meeting did not arise in isolation. The night before, during the April 22 Titusville City Council meeting, residents observed what they describe as similarly troubling conduct. Acting Council Chair Herman Cole instructed a speaker that she was required to face a specific direction while addressing council members. When another speaker asked where such a rule existed in city policy, Cole responded, “Well, you are now,” suggesting the rule had been created on the spot.
During the same meeting, resident Stan Johnston was repeatedly interrupted while using his allotted three minutes for public comment. When Johnston objected on the grounds that his speech was being improperly curtailed, Cole responded, “I don’t care,” a remark captured on the public record.
Taken together, these incidents have intensified concern among Titusville residents that constitutional protections at public meetings are being inconsistently applied or disregarded altogether. Advocates warn that such practices expose the city to legal risk and erode public trust.
Under Florida law, public officers are required to swear an oath to uphold both the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution. Recent court decisions in Florida have reinforced that peaceful, non-disruptive expression, including the display of silent signs, is protected at public meetings. Civil rights advocates note clear parallels between those rulings and the events in Titusville.
Legal experts caution that municipalities and individual officials may face liability under federal civil rights statutes when constitutional violations occur, regardless of whether apologies or corrective actions follow.
As public confidence in local institutions continues to be tested nationwide, many Titusville residents are calling for clearer policies, improved training for officials and law enforcement, and accountability measures to ensure that citizens’ rights are respected in real time—not merely acknowledged after the fact.
This article was originally published on advocatesvoice.com and is cross-posted here for broader public awareness.