I read with great interest the letter by First Amendment Foundation (FAF) President Barbara Petersen to Lisa Carlton, chair of the Declaration of Rights Committee of the Constitution Revision Commission (CRC), regarding her concerns over the proposal written by former Florida Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Bell, and which I am sponsoring, entitled the “Florida Privacy Restoration Act.”

I am somewhat bewildered by FAF’s letter. In my opinion, it reads as if the Foundation never read the last sentence of the existing privacy amendment as found in Article 1, Section 23, and/or the ten words I am proposing to be added to the provision: “with respect to privacy of information and the disclosure thereof.”

As you may know, Florida newspapers have a history of consistently opposing Florida’s privacy laws, often with little serious legal analysis and with the same type of alarmist tones and hypothetical scenarios you expressed in your letter.

In 1977, newspapers across Florida opposed the 1977-78 CRC’s proposed privacy amendment because of fears that the ability of the media to collect information would be stifled. The St. Petersburg Times argued that it “could have a chilling effect upon news gathering and would provide a convenient excuse for government secrecy … harmful to the public interest.”

In 1980, Florida newspapers continued to raise “grave concerns” and stoke fear over the privacy amendment proposed by the Legislature. A strong “government in the sunshine” provision was added, which stated “[t]his section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.” [READ MORE]