News

Bill to punish those who hide public records would put teeth in Florida Sunshine Law | Column

Scott Maxwell, The Orlando Sentinel
Tue, February 3, 2026 at 5:50 AM EST
 

Too many politicians and bureaucrats have learned they can get away with hiding information without facing penalties.

Once upon a time, Florida was viewed as a national model for public records. Citizens could request records and get them lickety-split.

If you learned your city council was considering putting a landfill, shooting range or strip mall near your neighborhood, you could ask the city to give you copies of all the emails lobbyists had sent city officials — and you’d get them.

If you learned your school board planned to close your child’s school, you could request copies of any reports school officials had created to justify the closure.

And if you were a business owner curious why the state awarded a lucrative contract to a competitor who was charging taxpayers higher prices, you could request calendar records to find out if any government officials had secretly met with your competitor’s reps — or even received offers of gifts, trips or dinners from them — before awarding the deal.

That is, of course, how it should be. You deserve to know how every tax dollar is spent and how every policy decision is made.

Unfortunately, in recent years, many politicians and bureaucrats have learned they can get away with hiding information, because the state’s Sunshine Laws lack teeth. The law says government officials must provide records, but doesn’t provide much punishment for those who don’t comply.

So while some public agencies still do solid jobs providing records, especially at the local level, far too many thumb their noses at the public’s right to know.

Fortunately, there’s a bill in the Florida Legislature this year that attempts to fix that. It has broad, bipartisan support in one chamber and deserves the same in the other.

House Bill 437 would force government officials to respond to record requests within three days and crack down on agencies that try to charge citizens excessive fees. It allows public officials time if they receive a complicated request, but says that if officials don’t provide the records within 15 days, they must explain why. Most importantly, it allows for punishment, including misdemeanor charges, for officials who don’t follow the rules.

Basically, it attempts to put the power of accessing public records back into the public’s hands — which is where it should’ve been all along.

“Providing public records isn’t doing someone a favor,” said Bobby Block, the executive director of Florida’s First Amendment Foundation, which is championing the bill. “It’s a constitutional obligation.”

Both Republicans and Democrats in the Florida House agree. Two weeks ago, a House subcommittee voted unanimously to advance the bill after citizen groups on both the left and the right shared stories of being stonewalled. Block also told lawmakers that the average records request in Florida was being accompanied by a ridiculous demand of $1,800.

The House bill is sponsored by Republican Alex Andrade, who experienced the stonewalling firsthand when he led last year’s probe into the Hope Florida scandal where millions of dollars intended for health care ended up funding political campaigns. The governor, his wife and the attorney general were all connected to the story. The public deserved answers. Yet Andrade said state agencies were “just sitting” on the records.

If a freaking Florida lawmaker can’t easily access public records, what chance do you stand?

You’ve read about some of this secret-keeping in our news pages:

The state’s department of education tried to make it difficult for the Orlando Sentinel to read complaints filed by parents who said taxpayer-funded vouchers were failing their children.

The Sentinel and other news organizations have been thwarted in their efforts to get details about billions of dollars in so-called “emergency” spending at “Alligator Alcatraz” and elsewhere, some of which was dished out in no-bid deals to companies with political connections.

And the state’s attorney general refused to release cell-phone records about exorbitantly priced taxpayer-funded flights that whisked Venezuelan migrants off to Martha’s Vineyard.

The Orlando Sentinel has had to repeatedly sue the state to get information that should have been provided immediately.

Meanwhile, records requests from rank-and-file citizens are routinely just ignored or slow-walked.

Just ask Central Floridian Bryce Maschino. After the state dispatched road crews in the middle of the night to erase a rainbow-colored crosswalk near the Pulse nightclub, the Orlando resident who volunteered with the American Red Cross to help victims after the shooting filed a request for emails to and from two state transportation officials that specifically mentioned that intersection.

To its partial credit, the state responded that it had found 115 records responsive to Maschino’s request and that Maschino would need to pay $34.62 to cover the one hour of staff time needed to provide them.

That sounded reasonable. So Maschino promptly paid what had been requested. But that was back in October. Since then, the state has not given him a single record, even though it said it had already identified them months ago.

“He paid the money!” Block said. “But then he never heard back. He never got anything.” Block’s First Amendment Foundation now has an attorney championing Maschino’s case. But it shouldn’t require that.

As Block says: “Accountability without consequences is not accountability at all.”

If you care about this issue, there are a couple of things you can do:

You can support a group like the First Amendment Foundation (www.floridafaf.org) that helps citizens access records.

You can also contact your state legislator and let them know you care about the issue and want this bill to pass. But to be candid, it’s not House members who need the pressure. They’ve already signaled support. Meanwhile, the companion bill in the Senate (SB 770) hasn’t moved at all, meaning it may live or die based on one man, Senate President Ben Albritton, who essentially controls that chamber. (Senators’ contact info can be found at www.flsenate.gov/Senators)

This should be a no-brainer for anyone who believes in transparency and the rule of law. As Tampa Bay Republican Rep. Susan Valdes said of the bill: “It’s sad that we even need to put it forward.”

It would be even sadder — a public affront, actually — if this common-sense bill doesn’t pass.
 

Commentary: Support lawmakers reforming Florida’s broken public records law

By: Bobby Block 
First Amendment Foundation

For the first time in many years, there is a real glimmer of hope for government transparency in Florida. After watching the state’s once nation-leading public records system buckle under political pressure, special interests, stonewalling and outright abuse, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has finally had enough.

State Sen. Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg, and state Rep. Alex Andrade, R-Pensacola, have introduced legislation — SB 770 and HB 437 — in this year’s legislative session that would put real teeth back into the laws protecting every Floridian’s constitutional right to know what their government is doing.

Bobby Block is executive director of the First Amendment Foundation. (courtesy, Bobby Block)

This reform effort did not emerge from academic theory or ceremonial Sunshine Week rhetoric. It grew out of lived experience — and a dawning realization that secrecy has become the default operating principle of state government.

No one understands this better than Andrade. Last year, he led House efforts to investigate the Hope Florida scandal, after the public learned that $10 million in Medicaid settlement funds — money intended for health care — had been routed through a nonprofit linked to the governor and ultimately used to support political activity opposing a citizen-led marijuana amendment. When Andrade sought basic records needed by his legislative subcommitee to do its job, requests went unanswered, deadlines passed and explanations disappeared. If a sitting legislator can’t obtain public records from the governor’s office, what chance does an ordinary Floridian have?

That experience is hardly unique. Every day, Floridians seeking information about school policies, zoning decisions, police incidents, tax levies or government contracts encounter silence or are quoted exorbitant “research and processing fees” just to access documents the public already owns. Delay has become policy. Indifference has become procedure.

Recent events show just how far enforcement has collapsed. In November 2025, the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee approved a report certifying that Florida was complying with its Transparency Florida Act — even though investigative reporting had already shown that billions of dollars in state contracts, including for the hastily devised immigrant detention facility in the Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” had never been posted to the public website where the law requires them to appear. The committee approved the report in under a minute, without discussion, rubber-stamping false compliance and rendering our transparency laws meaningless.

That same enforcement vacuum enabled an even more troubling revelation weeks later. Investigations by Seeking Rents, the Miami Herald, and the Tampa Bay Times found that at least $36 million in taxpayer funds — money originally earmarked for children’s services, health care and opioid recovery — had been diverted to advertising, consultants and legal services aimed at defeating two citizen-led constitutional amendments: one on marijuana, the other on abortion rights.

Florida law clearly prohibits using public resources to influence elections. But that prohibition only works if the public can see how money moved, who authorized it, and for what purpose. In this case, access to those records was delayed, fragmented and obscured — ensuring voters could not fully understand what was happening until long after ballots were cast.

The erosion of transparency is not limited to billion-dollar scandals. When the Orlando Sentinel sought records from the Florida Department of Transportation explaining the decision to paint over the rainbow-colored crosswalk near the Pulse nightclub — a community memorial to the victims of the 2016 mass shooting at the nightclub — the paper was unable to obtain a single document supporting FDOT’s public claim that the artwork posed a traffic hazard. No studies. No memos. No emails.

Taken together, these episodes reveal a system where public records laws exist largely without enforcement or accountability. Florida now has more than 1,200 statutory exemptions to public records access, and that number grows every year. Increasingly, agencies don’t even bother citing exemptions. They simply ignore requests, knowing there are no consequences for doing so.

That is why the reforms proposed by Rouson and Andrade matter so much. Their legislation would require agencies to acknowledge records requests within three business days, prohibit agencies from charging fees when they fail to respond on time, and — most importantly — impose penalties on officials who ignore or obstruct lawful requests. Accountability without consequences is not accountability at all.

This legislation, shaped with input from the First Amendment Foundation and research from the Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project and the Florida Center for Government Accountability, represents the strongest effort in years to restore Florida’s transparency framework. And it comes at a pivotal moment. A 2024 study cited by the Brechner Center ranked Florida 31st nationally in public records compliance and 49th in the fees charged to requesters — a stunning fall for the state that once defined open-records laws.

Decline, however, is not destiny. Floridians still have a choice. If we want a government that works for the people rather than above them, we must demand better. Call your lawmakers. Tell them you support HB 437 and SB 770. Insist on a government that doesn’t hide how it spends your money or wields your authority.

[Click Here for Article Link]
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

First Amendment Foundation Statement on United States v. Burke

The First Amendment Foundation – Florida applauds the federal court’s decision in United States v. Burke to dismiss wiretap charges that were never grounded in law. This ruling is a significant victory for free expression and press freedom, and it will help restore confidence that journalists, researchers, and members of the public are not breaking federal law simply by accessing or reviewing streaming information. 

For more than 40 years, our Foundation has defended the principle that government cannot use vague or untested theories to punish lawful newsgathering. The court’s rejection of the government’s approach here affirms that openness and access to information are cornerstones of both the First Amendment and a healthy democracy.

Key takeaways from the ruling:

  • Government overreach rejected. The court found that the government’s wiretap theory was not supported in law, sending a clear message that prosecutors cannot stretch statutes to intimidate or silence those engaged in lawful information gathering.
  • Streaming access is not a crime. The decision reassures journalists, watchdogs, and the public that reviewing streaming content does not violate federal law; a critical point in an era when so much information is shared online.
  • First Amendment values are protected. The dismissal upholds the principle that the press and public must be free to access, analyze, and report on information without fear of baseless criminal prosecution.

The First Amendment Foundation was proud to support Tim Burke in this case because the stakes extended far beyond one journalist. The government’s expansive theory, if accepted, could have chilled investigative reporting and undermined public confidence in the safety of newsgathering itself.

Today’s decision is a victory not only for Tim Burke, but for every citizen who believes in transparency, accountability, and the right to know.

Click here to review the court order.

Bobby Block

Executive Director

First Amendment Foundation – Florida
 

Charlie Kirk’s assassination: A threat to free expression | Opinion

By Bobby Block
September 12, 2025 9:30 AM

The brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk is more than just a crime against one man; it is a strike at the very heart of American democracy.

As people consider the life and untimely death of Kirk, it becomes essential to examine where they sit within the ongoing debate about free speech — its protections, its boundaries and the way society responds to words it does not like. His murder represents the ultimate form of censorship, one that undermines not only his voice but the principle of open expression on which this country is built.

Kirk was a polarizing figure. Many people admired his blunt, passionate style and believed he gave voice to ideas they felt had been ignored. Others despised his rhetoric and called it dangerous or hateful. That division is not unique to Kirk; it is the very landscape of public debate in a free society. The First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech precisely because it is always easiest to defend voices with which we agree. Protecting speech means protecting everyone. But in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, the fault lines of our national conversation have deepened. His supporters blame his critics, pointing to the harsh denunciations and verbal attacks he endured. His critics, in turn, insist that his conservative ideas and confrontational style sparked violence against him. This mutual recrimination misses the essential point: the First Amendment is not the problem. The problem is how we, as a society, choose to react to the kinds of speech we love and hate. If Kirk’s words outraged, the answer was to rebut them with reason, humor, protest or the countless other forms of speech available to us in a free society.

Violence, however, is never an acceptable answer. It is the ultimate cancellation, the final silencing that forecloses debate entirely. To condone it — or even to excuse it as an understandable reaction — is to surrender the central principle that sustains our democracy.

Over the last decade, America has drifted toward a dangerous intolerance of dissenting voices. On both the left and the right, there has been a growing impulse to cancel or silence those who say things we find uncomfortable or offensive.

Social media has amplified this trend, rewarding outrage and reducing complex debates to soundbites and insults. Kirk’s murder should be a wake-up call. We cannot afford to let violence become an acceptable response to speech, no matter how much we dislike what is being said.

Instead, we need to reclaim the lost art of resilience in public debate and recognize that our opponents in debate are still human beings.

We must reject the temptation to meet offense with fury, criticism with threats and words with weapons. Instead, we should embrace the nobler task: answering speech with more speech, guided by the better angels of our nature.

Kirk’s life and death tell us something profoundly American. He spoke his mind without fear, and in so doing, he exercised a right that belongs to every citizen. That right is fragile, because it depends on the willingness of all of us to uphold it in practice.

If we allow violence to dictate who may speak and who must remain silent, we will have abandoned not just the First Amendment but the democratic experiment it supports.

As the head of the First Amendment Foundation in Florida, I know how we fight for these goals every day and believe in them with all of our hearts. We believe the best way to honor Charlie Kirk is by recommitting ourselves to the principle that allowed him — and allows us — to speak in the first place. Free expression is not easy, but it is the foundation of a society where disagreements can be aired, arguments can be won or lost and no one need fear for their life because of the words they utter. That is the promise we must keep alive.

[Click to see the full article]
 

Press-Freedom Groups File Brief in Defense of Reporter Timothy Burke’s Right to Gather Newsworthy Content Online

Carlson and Burke

Burke had gained access to and reported on an antisemitic rant by Ye that occurred during the taping of Tucker Carlson’s since-canceled Fox News program

WASHINGTON — On Friday, a coalition of free-speech groups filed an amicus brief in United States v. Burke, a federal criminal prosecution that seeks to convict reporter Timothy Burke for publishing unaired footage from the former Fox News talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight.

The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Florida First Amendment Foundation, Free Press, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Jane Bambauer, professor of law and director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida.

Prosecutors are using the Wiretap Act, which prohibits “intercepting” “electronic communications,” in an attempt to convict Burke for finding and publicizing footage of, among other things, an antisemitic rant by Ye — formerly known as Kanye West — during a taping of Tucker Carlson’s since-cancelled Fox News show. Prosecutors claim that Burke’s actions involved the intentional interception of electronic communications and thereby violated the Act, statutory exceptions that include conditions where the “electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.”

The Court asked whether the text of the Wiretap Act criminalizes accessing generally accessible livestreams, and whether the First Amendment would allow such a reading. The issue is whether exceptions written into the Act must be proved as elements of the offense by the government, or an affirmative defense by the defendant.

Prosecutors claim that they’re entitled to bring Burke to trial regardless of whether the communications were accessible to the general public; instead, they say, Burke needs to prove as part of his defense that the communications were accessible. The amici argue that this would allow future government charges against journalists exercising their constitutional rights — or even charges against everyday people using the internet. 

[See full article here]
 
More Articles...
<< first < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next > last >>

Page 1 of 8