Kaitlin Bennett’s Attorney Warns Lakeland: Stop Chilling Free Speech or Face Lawsuit

On Saturday, May 17th, Liberty Hangout’s Kaitlin Bennett visited the Downtown Lakeland Farmers Market to interview locals about ongoing issues in the country. Julie Townsend, the Executive Director of the Lakeland Downtown Development Authority, asked the Lakeland Police Department to trespass her from the public event for “saying kind of disrespectful things about deportation and saying hateful statements.”

In response to the incident, Kaitlin has retained legal counsel to address the First Amendment violations. Her legal team is demanding the Lakeland Downtown Development Authority cease all unconstitutional restrictions on speech and provide assurance that such actions will not occur in the future. Bennett and her attorney are prepared to pursue all legal remedies, including federal civil rights litigation, if the Lakeland authorities fail to correct these violations. Read the demand letter in full below:

Re: First Amendment Violations at Lakeland Downtown Farmers Market – Demand for
Immediate Cessation of Unconstitutional Speech Restrictions

Dear LDDA Board Members:

Remnant Law is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to advancing and protecting the public interest in representing matters of fundamental civil and constitutional rights. Remnant Law pursues matters broadly affecting the public, including religious liberty and constitutional rights, where representation is made available and the public benefits from having these important issues presented to and resolved by the courts. In association with Florida counsel pursuant to Florida Bar Rule 4-5.5(c)(1), we write today on behalf of our client, Kaitlin Bennett, whose constitutional rights were violated at the Lakeland Downtown Farmers Market.

This letter serves as formal notice that your restrictions on protected speech activities at the Lakeland Downtown Farmers Market constitute violations of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We demand immediate cessation of all unconstitutional speech restrictions and policies.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On Saturday, May 17, 2025, our client and other individuals engaged in constitutionally protected activities at the Lakeland Downtown Farmers Market. During this protected speech activity, Lakeland Police Officers responded and restricted these individuals to sidewalk areas, ostensibly to avoid “disrupting market vendors.” This action represents an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech in a traditional public forum.

The Lakeland Downtown Development Authority is unquestionably a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints. The LDDA is an independent special district established under Florida law (Chapter 2004-415, Laws of Florida), governed by a seven-member board, six of whom are elected by downtown property owners and registered voters, and includes a City Commissioner appointed by the Mayor as a board member. The LDDA exercises governmental authority over public areas in downtown Lakeland.

Recent public records reveal that the LDDA merely obtains permission from the City of Lakeland to close Kentucky Avenue from Lemon to Oak Street for the farmers market, with sidewalks explicitly remaining outside the market’s jurisdiction. This arrangement confirms that the market operates within a traditional public forum while the surrounding sidewalks remain fully public spaces subject to the highest level of First Amendment protection.

I. UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS ON A TRADITIONAL PUBLIC
FORUM

The farmers market operates in what is clearly a traditional public forum. Traditional public forums are places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, including public streets, sidewalks, and parks. Downtown streets and sidewalks where the farmers market operates have been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity and used for communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions.

Of particular concern is the conduct of Julie Townsend, Executive Director of the Lakeland Downtown Development Authority. As the LDDA’s chief executive officer, Ms. Townsend is unquestionably a government actor whose unconstitutional conduct directly exposes the LDDA to liability for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

As alleged, Ms. Townsend’s actions as LDDA Executive Director included utilizing surveillance cameras in an intimidating manner against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights, coordinating with law enforcement to restrict protected speech activities, and engaging in systematic efforts with vendors to discourage and suppress lawful journalistic and expressive activities on the traditional public forum where the farmers market occurs.

Ms. Townsend’s conduct, undertaken in her official capacity as LDDA Executive Director, represents the LDDA’s official policy and practice of suppressing constitutionally protected speech. Her actions create both individual liability for herself and institutional liability for the LDDA as a government entity. This conduct represents a clear pattern of using governmental authority to suppress constitutionally protected speech, creating a chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental rights in traditional public forums.

II. APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS

A. Strict Scrutiny for Content-Based Restrictions

Any content-based regulation of First Amendment activity in a traditional public forum is subject to strict scrutiny and will be upheld only if the government can demonstrate that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.

B. Intermediate Scrutiny for Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions

While the government may regulate the time, place, and manner of expressive activities in a traditional public forum if those regulations are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.

III. YOUR RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The restriction of protected speech activities to sidewalk areas, while allowing the farmers market to occupy the same public forum, fails constitutional scrutiny under either standard.

Content-Based Discrimination

Restricting news gathering, interviews, and video recording while permitting commercial vendors constitutes impermissible content-based discrimination in a traditional public forum. The government cannot favor commercial speech over political, journalistic, or other protected expression without satisfying strict scrutiny.

Failure of Time, Place, Manner Analysis

Even if characterized as content-neutral, your restrictions fail the required constitutional analysis on multiple grounds. The restrictions are not narrowly tailored, as blanket restrictions on protected speech activities are not narrowly tailored to address any specific operational concerns. The restrictions fail to provide adequate alternative channels of communication, as restricting speakers to sidewalks while commercial vendors occupy the prime public forum space does not provide adequate alternative channels for communication. Finally, the restrictions are not justified by a sufficient government interest, as protecting commercial vendors from lawful speech activities does not constitute a significant government interest sufficient to justify restrictions on fundamental constitutional rights.

IV. CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY

Federal courts have consistently held that similar restrictions violate First Amendment protections. Farmers Markets controlled by state actors in traditional public forums cannot impose content-based restrictions or unreasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on protected speech.

The First Amendment does not permit government entities to create “speech-free zones” in traditional public forums to protect commercial interests. As established in numerous federal court decisions, the mere fact that a market obtains permits or pays fees to use public space does not transform that forum into a nonpublic one, as long as the market remains free and open to the public.

DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION

We hereby demand that the Lakeland Downtown Development Authority immediately cease all attempts to place, intimidate, or use positions of authority to place unconstitutional restrictions on protected speech activities at the Lakeland Downtown Farmers Market.

The LDDA should train all personnel, including any law enforcement officers working at the market, on the constitutional rights of individuals engaging in protected speech in traditional public forums. We further demand that the LDDA provide written assurance that individuals may engage in constitutionally protected activities, including news gathering, interviews, and video recording, throughout the public areas where the farmers market operates, subject only to reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions.

We specifically demand that the LDDA investigate the conduct of Julie Townsend for her unconstitutional activities in attempting to chill protected speech through intimidation and coordinated suppression efforts in her official capacity as a government actor. The LDDA had a duty and responsibility to the general public to ensure intimidation tactics are not deployed against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights.

Please be advised that if you fail to comply, we will pursue all available legal remedies on behalf of our client through our local counsel, including but not limited to federal civil rights litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the LDDA and individual defendants for violation of clearly established constitutional rights, injunctive relief to prevent future violations, damages for past violations, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

Sincerely,

Jonathan K. Hullihan
President and General Counsel
Remnant Law
In association with Anthony Sabatini Esq.

cc: Lakeland City Commission
cc: Lakeland Police Department