Issuu

June 8, 2026 Dr. Maria F. Vazquez, Superintendent Orange County Public Schools 445 W Amelia St., Orlando, FL 32801 407-317-3200 Dear Dr. Vazquez: We, a group of press organizations, jointly write to express concerns about the Orange County Public Schools’ Management Directive B-5 (the “Media Policy”). While the Media Policy may have been adopted with good intentions, it is our experience that it suppresses press freedoms, restricts speech, limits the flow of information to the community, and chills First Amendment-protected speech. The Media Policy’s restrictions hinder our ability to gather and report news and may also impede the school system’s ability to share information with the public. We value our relationship with Orange County Public Schools and the role it plays in serving the broader community. That relationship depends on the free flow of information. We write to preserve and strengthen this fruitful relationship moving forward. The Media Policy has the unfortunate effect of restricting the flow of information that makes this relationship work. As written, it appears to require all Orange County Public Schools’ employees to seek permission before responding to media requests. Not only is the open exchange of information between the school system and the press vital to our ongoing relationship and to an informed public, it is also guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate precedent firmly supports these freedoms—including employee speech on matters of public concern. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). While the government may regulate employees’ speech made within their official duties, such restrictions cannot be absolute. In one instance, a municipality sought to prevent police from discussing internal police matters with any external party—including the media—to control the flow of communication. Because the policy extended beyond official duties to ban any comments or conversations relating to matters that could be of public concern, the court found that this policy was an improper restriction of publicemployee speech. Moonin v. Tice, 868 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2017). Courts have rejected overbroad policies that extend beyond Garcetti’s limited scope. In Barrett v. Thomas, a binding precedent, the Fifth Circuit struck down a policy that prohibited public employees from making media comments on any matters that could possibly be controversial as overbroad. This holding confirms that facial constitutional challenges are warranted against policies that require prior authorization for public statements by government employees, partially because of the problematic chilling effect that such policies can have on speech. The Media Policy raises concerns regarding the well-established right of government employees to speak freely on matters of public concern. Open communication from public