Can a Kentucky public agency stop a citizen from live-streaming a public meeting on their cell phone?
Plain-English summary
Senator Gex Williams asked the Attorney General whether a public agency can stop a member of the public from live-streaming one of its meetings on a cell phone, assuming the person is doing so in a "non-intrusive and non-disruptive" way. The answer is no.
The Open Meetings Act starts from the policy that public business is public and should not be conducted in secret. KRS 61.840 says no condition other than those needed "for the maintenance of order" can be placed on the public's attendance at a meeting, and that agencies "shall permit news media coverage, including but not limited to recording and broadcasting." The Attorney General has long read that statute to give the public "a virtually unconditional right to attend" meetings and to record them, so long as the person and the equipment do not interfere with the orderly conduct of the meeting.
The opinion treats live-streaming on a cell phone as no different from recording on one. KRS 61.840 already requires agencies to permit "broadcasting," and the reference to news media is illustrative, not a special privilege that puts reporters above ordinary citizens. Because a non-intrusive, non-disruptive person creates no need for any condition to maintain order, the Act does not allow an agency to block that person from live-streaming.
What this means for you
Citizens attending public meetings: Based on this opinion, if you can attend a public meeting you can also live-stream it on your phone, provided you are not disrupting the meeting. An agency cannot single out streaming for a ban that it could not impose on plain attendance.
Public agencies and board members: The opinion reads KRS 61.840 to permit only those conditions "required for the maintenance of order." A flat prohibition on cell-phone live-streaming by a quiet, non-disruptive attendee is not such a condition, so adopting or enforcing one risks an Open Meetings violation. You can still address genuinely disruptive behavior.
Journalists: The opinion confirms the recording-and-broadcasting right is not limited to the news media; it belongs to the public generally. The footnote adds that because the statute does not treat the press differently from the public on this point, the First Amendment concern raised in the request does not arise.
Common questions
Q: Can I live-stream a city council or school board meeting on my phone in Kentucky?
A: Yes, based on this opinion, as long as you are non-intrusive and non-disruptive. The Attorney General concluded the Open Meetings Act does not let a public agency stop you.
Q: Is live-streaming treated differently from recording?
A: No. The opinion says there is "little difference" between recording a meeting on a cell phone and live-streaming it, and KRS 61.840 already requires agencies to permit broadcasting.
Q: Do only reporters have the right to record and broadcast?
A: No. The opinion explains that the statute's mention of news media is "illustrative" and does not place the press above the common citizen; the recording and broadcasting right extends to members of the public.
Q: When can an agency limit how I attend or record?
A: Only with conditions "required for the maintenance of order" under KRS 61.840. A person who is non-intrusive and non-disruptive gives the agency no basis for such a condition.
Background and statutory framework
The Open Meetings Act declares in KRS 61.800 that "the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret," and that the exceptions in KRS 61.810 or otherwise provided by law are to be strictly construed. KRS 61.840 provides that "[n]o condition other than those required for the maintenance of order shall apply to the attendance of any member of the public at any meeting of a public agency" and that "[a]ll agencies shall permit news media coverage, including but not limited to recording and broadcasting."
The opinion builds on the office's prior Open Meetings decisions, which it cites as persuasive: 08-OMD-249 (the public has "a virtually unconditional right to attend all meetings"); 96-OMD-143 (a member of the public should be permitted to tape record a meeting so long as the person and equipment do not interfere with its orderly conduct); 01-OMD-166 (an agency violated the Act by refusing to let a member of the public record its meeting); and 04-OMD-102 (members of the public do not need express permission to record). Reading those together with KRS 61.840's "broadcasting" language, the opinion concludes that cell-phone live-streaming is a modern example of protected recording and broadcasting, and that no condition is needed for the maintenance of order when the streamer is non-intrusive and non-disruptive.
Source
- Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Opinions/Pages/default.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG%2026-01.pdf
Original opinion text
January 5, 2026
OAG 26-01
Subject: Whether a public agency may prevent a citizen from live-streaming a meeting of a public agency in a non-intrusive and non-disruptive manner using his or her cell phone.
Requested by: Senator Gex Williams, Kentucky Senate, District 20
Written by: Zachary M. Zimmerer, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Civil and Environmental Law
Syllabus: The Open Meetings Act does not allow a public agency to prevent a member of the public from live-streaming its meetings in a "non-intrusive and non-disruptive" manner.
Opinion of the Attorney General
Senator Williams has asked the Office of the Attorney General ("the Office") whether a public agency may prevent a member of the public from live-streaming a meeting of a public agency on his or her cellphone. For purposes of this question, the Senator has asked that the Office assume the citizen is doing so in a "non-intrusive and non-disruptive" manner.
The "basic policy" of the Open Meetings Act ("the Act") "is that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret and the exceptions provided for by KRS 61.810 or otherwise provided for by law shall be strictly construed." KRS 61.800. Under KRS 61.840, "[n]o condition other than those required for the maintenance of order shall apply to the attendance of any member of the public at any meeting of a public agency" and "[a]ll agencies shall permit news media coverage, including but not limited to recording and broadcasting."
The Office has previously found that "KRS 61.840 vests members of the public with a virtually unconditional right to attend all meetings of a public agency." 08-OMD-249. Indeed, the only conditions of attendance permitted by the Act are "those required for the maintenance of order." KRS 61.840.
Regarding the recording of public meetings, the Office has found that public agencies that did not allow members of the public to record their meetings violated KRS 61.840. See, e.g., 96-OMD-143 (finding a member of the public "should be permitted to tape record a public meeting so long as that person and his or her taping equipment do not interfere with the orderly conduct of the public meeting"); 01-OMD-166 (finding a public agency violated the Act when it did not allow a member of the public to record its meeting); 04-OMD-102 (finding members of the public do not require express permission to record a meeting of a public agency).
Senator Williams's question is focused on members of the public who seek to live-stream meetings of public agencies using a cellphone. For the purpose of KRS 61.840, there is little difference between recording a meeting on a cellphone and live-streaming a meeting on a cellphone. Indeed, KRS 61.840 also requires the "broadcasting" of public meetings to be permitted. Though KRS 61.840 specifically requires agencies to permit "news media coverage, including but not limited to recording and broadcasting" (emphasis added), that requirement does not place the news media in a position superior to that of the common citizen. Rather, it is simply illustrative of what it means for public agencies' meetings to be open to the public and that any exceptions to this general rule be "strictly construed" under KRS 61.800. Thus, the Office has previously found that KRS 61.840's grant of recording authority extends to members of the public. See, e.g., 96-OMD-143; 01-OMD-166; 04-OMD-102. In light of the current state of technology and the ubiquity of persons live-streaming content using their cell phones, the live-streaming of a public meeting with a cellphone is but a modern example of "recording and broadcasting" public meetings that is protected by KRS 61.840.
Senator Williams limits his inquiry only to members of the public who are "non-intrusive and non-disruptive." No conditions are necessary for the "maintenance of order" if the live-streaming member of the public is "non-intrusive and non-disruptive." As such, a public agency may not prevent a "non-intrusive and non-disruptive" member of the public from live-streaming meetings of public agencies. It is therefore the opinion of the Office that the Act does not allow a public agency to prevent a "non-intrusive and non-disruptive" member of the public from live-streaming its meetings. [1]
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
[1] Senator Williams also asks whether KRS 61.840's mandate that public agencies "shall permit news media coverage" violates the First Amendment by not expressly granting the same right to all members of the public. Because it is the opinion of the Office that KRS 61.840 does not allow a public agency to prevent a "non-intrusive and non-disruptive" member of the public from live-streaming its public meetings, KRS 61.840 does not treat the news media differently from members of the public.