Free Speech or Disruption? Frederick County Decorum Rules May Face Constitutional Test After Removal of Shaun Porter

The recent removal of Shaun Porter from a Frederick County Public Schools Board of Education meeting highlights the significant constitutional risk inherent in regulating citizen speech at public meetings, especially in light of the recent, high-profile First Amendment case in Arizona. Porter was removed during his speech against the board for their revisions of their public comment policy and Policy 443 (which focused on student transgender rights) in light of the recent alleged sexual abuse of multiple students by a FCPS teacher.

The Frederick County Board, like local governments across the country, must balance its need to maintain orderly meetings with the public’s fundamental right to criticize elected officials. This balance is tested when a speaker, such as Porter, is removed from a public comment period for alleged violations of decorum policies, including the use of specific language or perceived personal attacks. Initial analysis suggests that while the Board has procedural authority under state law to remove disruptive individuals, the specific rules used to justify the removal are vulnerable to challenge, potentially leading to costly legal battles funded by local taxpayers.

The FCPS Board meetings are governed by Policy 102, which provides a detailed framework for public participation. The policy establishes the meeting as a limited public forum, allowing the Board to implement content-neutral restrictions on the manner of speech, such as setting a three-minute time limit for speakers. Furthermore, the Board President is granted the authority to order the removal of any individual who fails to comply with the defined procedures, a power that is consistent with the Maryland Open Meetings Act, which allows presiding officers to remove individuals who are disrupting an open session. However, the recently revised policy’s most precarious elements are the rules governing the content of speech, which require participants to refrain from using “profane” language and prohibit “personal attacks on individual Board members that is unrelated to Board business.” Federal case law provides robust protection for political speech, establishing that generalized profanity and even harsh, cutting criticism of public officials on matters related to their official conduct cannot be censored merely because the governing body finds the remarks distasteful or offensive. For any removal to be legally defensible, it must be based on a content-neutral violation of conduct, such as a refusal to yield the podium after the time limit expires, rather than a subjective interpretation of the speech’s content.  

The dangers of improperly enforcing content-based decorum rules were dramatically demonstrated in the City of Surprise, Arizona, where resident Rebekah Massie was forcibly removed and subsequently arrested for trespassing after speaking at a City Council meeting. Massie used her allotted time to criticize the proposed salary increase for the City Attorney, a clear exercise of core political speech. The Mayor enforced the city’s policy by warning Massie that she would be “escorted out” for “attack[ing] any staff member” or city official. The resulting arrest, which took place in front of Massie’s ten-year-old daughter, was widely publicized. The severe legal backlash included an Arizona court dismissing the criminal charges against Massie with prejudice, declaring the city’s actions to be “objectively outrageous.” The judge asserted that no branch of government has the authority to control the content of political speech. Following the initiation of a civil rights lawsuit, the City of Surprise quietly withdrew the unconstitutional policy that had prohibited criticism of its officials.  

The legal fallout from the Arizona case sets a crucial precedent for Frederick County and all local governments. It confirms that policies banning generalized criticism or regulating speech simply because it is negative and directed at officials will fail to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Taxpayers in Frederick County have a direct stake in ensuring that FCPS Policy 102 is enforced judiciously and with a clear focus on content neutrality. Any attempt to use the decorum rules—particularly the prohibitions on “profanity” or “personal attacks”—as a pretext to silence strong dissenting viewpoints would expose the school district to significant legal liability, requiring the use of public funds to defend actions that courts have already deemed unconstitutional. The presence of strict procedural rules, such as pre-registration requirements and identity verification, while serving a valid purpose in organizing the meeting, must not be confused with a right to control the substance of a resident’s comments. The enduring legal principle is that the right to speak out against public bodies, even with harsh or unpopular language, remains highly protected by the First Amendment.

“I will never stop fighting corrupt woke officials who seek to harm our kids,” said Porter in a statement to Radio Free Hub City. “This is just the beginning!!”

Porter is no stranger to court proceedings, and recently filed a $104 million counterclaim against Washington County Commissioner President John Barr, Washington County Government, and numerous others regarding his ongoing disputes with Washington County Government. That case is still pending.

Frederick County Public Schools did not return request for comment regarding the incident.

Article by Ken Buckler, based upon the FCPS Maryland meeting recording, Maryland Open Meetings Act, and previous coverage.

---