From Patrick v. Pasco County Fla. Tax Collector, decided Tuesday by Judges Kevin Newsom, Andrew Brasher, and Frank Hull:
Plaintiff Lana Patrick is a self-described “Journalist/Activist.” This case arises from Patrick’s attempt to record a video inside the Pasco County Tax Collector’s (“Tax Collector”) office near Dade City, Florida….
“The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.” Smith v. City of Cumming (11th Cir. 2000). But the right to record is not absolute, because “the Constitution does not require the government to ‘grant access to all who wish to exercise their right to free speech,’ no matter the setting, ‘without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that might be caused by the speaker’s activities.'”
Instead, the validity of a regulation depends on the forum in which it applies: a traditional public forum, a designated public forum, a limited public forum, or a nonpublic forum. {Although the public may have an interest in the proper functioning of a county tax office, the First Amendment “does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.”} Patrick does not challenge the district court’s characterization of the Tax Collector office’s lobby as either a limited public forum or a nonpublic forum.
In either forum, the recording policy is constitutional if it is reasonable in light of the purposes of the forum and viewpoint neutral…. The recording policy here reasonably served to (1) protect sensitive documents or conversations from disclosure; (2) prevent distractions; and (3) allow county employees to service a high volume of customers free from more burdensome confidentiality measures.
The recording policy is also viewpoint neutral. The recording policy prevents all video recording within the interior of a Tax Collector facility without the Tax Collector’s prior approval, regardless of the speaker or videographer’s purpose, goal, or viewpoint…. Even if that restriction is a content-based restriction, content-based restrictions are constitutionally permissible in limited public forums or nonpublic forums so long as they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
{The district court also dismissed Patrick’s prior restraint claim, reasoning that the recording policy did not function as a prior restraint. In her opening brief, Patrick never uses the term “prior restraint” and never explains the basis for any prior restraint claim. In her reply brief, Patrick does discuss her prior restraint claim, but her failure to address the district court’s dismissal of that claim in her initial brief means she forfeited those arguments.}
