In the final minutes of a nearly five-hour meeting on July 8, 2025, the Titusville City Council voted unanimously to seek “advisability” on a series of measures that critics say are anti-constitutional, anti-press, and overtly hostile toward citizen participation.
The discussion, which began near the end of the meeting under council reports, when most citizens had either left or stopped watching, centered on restricting public comment, targeting individuals recording or photographing council proceedings, and prioritizing speaking rights for only city residents and property owners.
Proposed Restrictions on Assembly, Speech, and Media
Council Member Jo Lynn Nelson introduced the motion by voicing concerns over disruptions during public comment, particularly citizens recording or photographing council meetings, the display of signs in the chamber, and speakers from outside city limits voicing criticism.
“The people who are coming in to videotape, I’m assuming for social media, are very disruptive,” Nelson said. “They’re wandering around taking pictures… It’s distracting.”
The council explored options such as:
- Restricting early public comment (“Petitions & Requests”) to only Titusville residents or property owners.
- Requiring speaker cards that include residency status and specific complaint topics.
- Enforcing limitations on signs and visual materials in the audience area.
- Possibly limiting or regulating recordings and photography inside the chamber.
Though framed as a move to bring “decorum” to meetings, the council’s discussion raised immediate red flags among First Amendment advocates. The U.S. Constitution protects:
- Freedom of speech (including criticism of government),
- Freedom of the press (including independent recording and reporting),
- Freedom of assembly (the right to attend and participate in public meetings),
- And petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
Attempts to suppress or delay public comment from non-residents, restrict signs, and control recordings could be construed as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation against press and advocacy activity.
Not the First Time Council Has Tried to Silence Citizens
This is not the first instance in which the Titusville City Council has attempted to suppress or marginalize public participation.
On May 27, 2025, Council Member Herman Cole made a motion to move the first round of public comment to the end of the meeting, prompting widespread backlash and audible gasps from those in attendance. Approximately three and a half hours later, around 9:30 p.m., Mayor Andrew Connors escalated the attempt by making a separate motion to eliminate the first round of public comment entirely and cease televising it, citing alleged violations of FCC rules.
The justification centered around a longtime resident, Elizabeth Baker, who had reportedly used inappropriate language during the meeting. However, residents quickly pointed out the double standard, as Council Member Cole had used profanity earlier in that same meeting, and associates of council members have similarly used coarse language without consequence. Many believe Baker was specifically targeted due to the mayor’s personal disdain for her, despite her status as a consistent and engaged Titusville resident.
The attempt to eliminate public comment and suppress its broadcast ultimately failed, with the motion receiving support only from Mayor Connors and Council Member Sarah Stoeckel.
Council Member Stoeckel, in particular, has drawn ongoing criticism from residents, who say she has demonstrated a consistent disregard for citizen concerns, a dismissive attitude toward public input, and a pattern of anti-constitutional behavior regarding freedom of speech and civic engagement. Her alignment with motions designed to curtail public discourse has only reinforced perceptions that some members of the council are actively seeking to silence dissent rather than address it.
Each time, these tactics were quietly inserted near the end of long meetings, typically under “Council Reports,” a non-agenda section that lacks transparency and advance notice to the public. Tuesday’s meeting followed that same pattern, slipping major speech-affecting policy talk in at the end of a 6-hour session.
Council Admits They May Face Lawsuits—and Are Willing to Use Taxpayer Funds to Defend
Council Members acknowledged potential legal consequences but seemed undeterred. In fact, multiple council members have expressed a preference for hiring legal counsel not afraid of being sued, referring to “high-profile lawsuits” as inevitable.
“If what someone wants to say is so important that they’re willing to wait until 11:00 p.m., let them,” said Cole, brushing aside concerns about fairness or public access.
The city’s recent hiring of Michael Rodriguez as city attorney, a figure with a history of adversarial relationships with citizens in Apopka, further solidifies concerns that the council is actively preparing to litigate against the public, not collaborate with it.
Community Reaction: Censorship in Plain Sight
While council members insisted they weren’t “prohibiting” speech, critics argue that the pattern is unmistakable. Several residents have already taken to social media to accuse the city of weaponizing procedural rules to suppress dissent and shield themselves from scrutiny.
One resident wrote:
“First they tried to move public comment to the end. Then they tried erase public comment. Now they’re asking if they can keep out people who aren’t from the city, a few of whom are journalists, business owners, or family of residents. This is censorship, plain and simple.”
Another added:
“This council is turning into a closed circle, where only the people they approve can speak, and everyone else is silenced or dismissed. That’s not democracy.”
What Happens Next?
Because the July 8 vote was for “advisability,” city staff and the city attorney will now research policies from other Florida cities and return with formal recommendations. The council will then decide whether to adopt these restrictions as official policy.
Until then, advocates for government transparency and civil liberties are urging residents to stay alert.
“The First Amendment doesn’t end at the Titusville city limits,” one local advocate said. “They may try to delay our voices, but they can’t legally erase them.”
Sources:
- May 27, 2025, Regular City Council Meeting where Council Member Cole moves public comments: https://www.youtube.com/live/3jlpPJYrrXk?si=Y9D6TmXgCtUmVsFS&t=877
- May 27, 2025, Connors Pushes to end Public Comment: https://www.youtube.com/live/3jlpPJYrrXk?si=1_QD53es3loAyIgJ&t=13034
- July 8. 2025 Meeting: https://youtu.be/7EAqbpkUOa4?si=b98xWTwhxA0hvE7L