Public discourse at school board meetings is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring transparency, accountability, and community engagement in educational decisions. Yet, recent actions by the Jericho School Board suggest a troubling pattern of viewpoint discrimination, selectively allowing only positive comments while filtering out critical ones.
This unconstitutional practice is strikingly similar to a recent federal court ruling that found similar school board policies in Brevard County, Florida, to be in violation of the First Amendment. If a board allows positive speech about an individual or policy but prohibits negative speech, the courts have been clear—that’s illegal.
What Happened in Brevard County?
In the case Moms for Liberty – Brevard County, FL v. Brevard Public Schools, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Brevard’s school board policies that banned “abusive” and “personally directed” comments were unconstitutional. The Court found that:
- The ban on “personally directed” speech was unconstitutional because it was too vague and restricted protected speech.
- The ban on “abusive” speech was unconstitutional because it targeted critical viewpoints while allowing praise.
- A restriction on “obscene” speech was unconstitutional as applied when used to suppress book readings from the school’s own library.
After this ruling, the Brevard School Board refused to change its policy, leading to a federal judge issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibiting them from enforcing the unconstitutional rules. The judge made it clear: Public meetings are a limited public forum, and selective enforcement of speech rules violates the First Amendment.
This decision sets a strong precedent, making it clear that public boards cannot restrict speech based on viewpoint.
How Does This Compare to Jericho?
The Jericho School Board has policies that encourage public expression but simultaneously limit certain types of speech under the guise of “civility” and “ethics.” However, the board’s actual enforcement of these policies raises constitutional red flags.
1. The Board’s Selective Enforcement of “Civility” Rules
- The Board’s Code of Ethics and Civility states that members must communicate in a civil tone without “hostility” or “offensive language.”
- But who decides what is hostile? If positive comments are allowed but criticism is shut down, this is viewpoint discrimination, just like in Brevard.
2. Discretion to Read Only Positive Comments
- The Board reserves the right to read public comments selectively, creating a system where only favorable feedback is acknowledged.
- The Brevard case made clear that school boards cannot selectively filter speech at public meetings.
3. Control Over Who Can Speak & What They Can Say
- The Board gives itself discretion over who can participate in discussions and how community suggestions are considered.
- If that discretion is used to suppress dissenting opinions, it becomes an unconstitutional restriction on speech.
4. The “Complaints and Grievances” Process as a Barrier to Public Criticism
- While the formal complaints process exists, it is not a substitute for public discourse.
- Requiring individuals to go through an internal complaints process before raising concerns publicly is a classic example of chilling free speech.
The Key Constitutional Question: Can a Board Allow Praise but Not Criticism?
The Brevard case directly answers this: No.
The First Amendment does not allow public officials to create a one-sided forum where only positive comments about board members, administrators, or policies are permitted. This is textbook viewpoint discrimination, which is why the federal court struck down Brevard’s policy.
If a citizen can stand up at a school board meeting and say,
- “The superintendent is doing an excellent job”,
but cannot say, - “The superintendent is failing our students”,
that is unconstitutional.
If Jericho’s policies or enforcement mirror Brevard’s, they are on shaky legal ground.
What Comes Next?
The Jericho School Board now faces a critical decision:
Will it correct course and revise its policies to align with constitutional protections?
Or will it double down on selective censorship, risking legal challenges and public backlash?
The Brevard ruling has set a clear legal precedent, making Jericho’s current approach legally vulnerable. If the Board continues suppressing negative speech, it could face a constitutional challenge for viewpoint discrimination.
The courts have consistently ruled that government officials cannot control public speech based on whether they agree with it or not. If challenged, Jericho’s policies will likely not withstand scrutiny.
Public institutions exist to serve their communities, not silence them.
The First Amendment Applies in Jericho
The Jericho School Board must recognize that selective censorship is not only unethical but unconstitutional.
If praise is allowed but criticism is silenced, the First Amendment is being violated. The Brevard ruling serves as a clear warning—school boards that attempt to manipulate public discourse will be held accountable.
Will Jericho choose to uphold democracy and free speech?
Or will it continue down a path that the courts have already ruled unlawful?
The community deserves an answer. And, if necessary, the courts may provide one.
