One of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's proudest achievements is the Stop WOKE Act. Among other things, it bars employers from holding mandatory DEI training sessions. Four months after the law was signed a district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement on First Amendment grounds, and today DeSantis unanimously lost his appeal in the 11th Circuit Court:
Florida’s law, the Individual Freedom Act, bans certain mandatory workplace trainings.... Discussion of these topics, however, is not completely barred—the law prohibits requiring attendance only for sessions endorsing them. Employers can still require employees to attend sessions that reject these ideas or present them in an “objective manner without endorsement of the concepts.”
....By limiting its restrictions to a list of ideas designated as offensive, the Act targets speech based on its content. And by barring only speech that endorses any of those ideas, it penalizes certain viewpoints—the greatest First Amendment sin.
Florida tried to argue that the law prohibited only conduct—i.e., meetings—not speech itself. The court had no patience for this obvious sophistry:
The fact that only mandatory meetings that convey a particular message and viewpoint are prohibited makes quick work of Florida’s conduct-not-speech defense.... If Florida disapproves of the message, the meeting cannot be required.
....Under Florida’s proposed standard, a government could ban riding on a parade float if it did not agree with the message on the banner. The government could ban pulling chairs into a circle for book clubs discussing disfavored books. And so on. The First Amendment is not so easily neutered.
There's more, but it's just the legalistic superstructure required in modern judicial opinions. For all practical purposes, the opinion can be boiled down to two sentences: Florida is trying to ban the private expression of certain viewpoints it dislikes. That is absolutely, positively not allowed by the First Amendment.
The three-judge panel that issued this opinion included two Trump appointees and one Clinton appointee.
POSTSCRIPT: The Stop WOKE Act also prohibits similar DEI instruction in schools. That was not at issue in this case and the court said nothing about it. However, a district court has already issued an injunction against the law as it relates to higher education.
This is really good news:
"Four months after the law was signed a district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement on First Amendment grounds, and today DeSantis unanimously lost his appeal in the 11th Circuit Court:"
Sounds to me like a clear victory for free speech. Excellent.
But: here's the thing. Free speech is not a partisan issue. And it means nothing unless free speech rights are upheld in all relevant circumstances, whether we agree or disagree with the speech in question.
So, are we really in favor of free speech, or are we simply opposed to Republicans like DeSantis? Because if Liberals/Lefties are to be consistent free speech supporters, we need to do more than obsess over Florida's obvious free speech violations (relating to DEI). We also need to obsess over California's obvious free speech violations (relating to DEI).
"One of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's proudest achievements is the Stop WOKE Act. Among other things, it bars employers from holding mandatory DEI training sessions."
Great, but what about the California Community College regulations which, rather than banning DEI, enforces it? Tens of thousands of faculty members in CCCs are compelled to promote speech that most, if not the vast majority of them, do not agree with. And just like in Florida, there are lawsuits under way.
Let's hear more about that, thanks.
Tens of thousands of faculty members in CCCs are compelled to promote speech that most, if not the vast majority of them, do not agree with.
Even with the squishy "promote," LOLno. But arguendo, citation please.
Has somebody had you strapped to a chair watching Fox? This is laughably stupid and utter nonsense. And you didn't even cite a "source", instead only referring to the same stupid sophomoric debate tactic of "most if not the vast majority." I looked up the "lawsuits" under way and found one:
"The rules, which took effect in the spring, establish criteria for the evaluation of employees regarding their “demonstrated, or progress toward, proficiency in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility … competencies that enable work with diverse communities,” according to a May memo from system leaders.
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit against Bakersfield College and Kern Community College District leaders filed by Daymon Johnson, a history professor at the college. His suit alleged that he and other professors were penalized for espousing conservative views under the system’s mandate and discouraged from exercising their free speech rights."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/11/15/california-judge-recommends-suspending-community-college-dei-rules
So it sounds like some right wing guy got mad that he couldn't deny that systemic racism was a thing and he didn't even lose his job over that - he's just arguing that he's being penalized when an understanding of DEI principles is added to his performance evaluations. Nobody's speech is being suppressed there. It's just the equivalent of an asshole being mad that there are consequences to acting like an asshole.
Job requirements change all the time. Just because an employee doesn't like the requirements doesn't mean their first amendment rights are being infringed.
But thanks for continuing to out yourself!
@ cmayo:
The title of the article that you cite is:
"California Judge Recommends Suspension of Community College DEI Rules"
So, right there, your article seems to support my position that the California Community College (CCC) regulations in question are inappropriate (if not clearly illegal).
From your article, the judge found that the CCC regulations may "advance these interests ... contrary to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech in the academic arena."
Did you really not notice that you were providing an article which validates my points?
Anyway, there are indeed a growing number of articles out there on this topic. Liberal Democrat and author Greg Lukianoff writes:
"Still, from a legislative or regulatory standpoint, the single biggest threat I have seen to free speech and academic freedom on campus has been the DEI requirements implemented by the California Community Colleges system. In an effort to combat these requirements, FIRE sued the California Community Colleges Chancellor and the members of its Board of Governors, as well as the State Center Community College District.
"In the case, FIRE is representing six tenured professors, each of whom teach at one of three Fresno-area community colleges within the State Center Community College District. Under the new regulations, all of the more-than-54,000 professors who teach in the system must incorporate “anti-racist” viewpoints into classroom teaching and pledge allegiance to contested ideological viewpoints.”
Again, the question here does not relate to support for or opposition to anti-racism. The question relates to free speech. You might support anti-racism; but, if you support free speech, you cannot support regulations that compel others to agree with you.
The only way anyone on the Left can support the CCC regulations in question is a.) through blind, tribal loyalty and/or b.) through an abandonment of free speech.
Those really are the only two options, and neither of them are particularly pretty. So, I urge you to reconsider your position.
The third option, the correct one, is that you're simply yet another dim-witted troll who's so lacking in imagation that you can't see how people can see through you so easily.
Too bad we can't downvote you so you can get a numerical sense of how little people think of your, ahem, 'contributions'.
@ScentOfViolets:
There is nothing in your post that engages in any way with the argument I present.
I get it: we're online. And online chats are notoriously toxic. Even by that standard, though, your use of ad hominem attack is next level.
I lay out what I believe to be a cogent argument for free speech. I cite real-world examples. I quote judges and legal experts. And you respond to none of that. You simply insult.
So, have you ever heard of projection? You might want to keep that concept in mind before referring to anyone else as a "dim-witted troll."
Oh really? Who said this?
Why did you think I stuck my oar in when I did, fool? For someone who's quick to slam others -- and with incoherent, poorly thought-out ones at that -- you seem remarkably sensitive to punch-backs. Okay, I admit it, punch-downs 😉
To show that I'm not as unremmitedly though, I'll throw you a bone: I found your use of the word 'projection', um, enteraining.
Again, nothing but ad hominem.
To point out that you don't know what ad hominem means is to belabor the obvious. But say for the sake of argument this is true: Why then do you have the time and energy to respond to me but you _don't_ have the time and energy to respond to the less meta but more substantive comments of others?
God you're easy.
Literally none of that was attacking the source's personage, so literally no ad hominem,
@Leo1008 - This is Scent's MO. He rarely has anything substantive or positive to say --- most of his comments are derision and insult. He often will accuse you of being out of step with other commentators and therefore you should just shut up. And he always wants the last word. I don't know the guy, but based on his comments, well, something seems off.
He was (and sometimes still is) on my ass quite a bit, but I just refuse to engage with him any more. This comment is as close as I will come. Not worth the aggravation. You seem like a civil man trying to hold civil discourse, so I recommend you do the same.
He often will accuse you of being out of step with other commentators ...
AKA wrong.
... and therefore you should just shut up
Well, no. You therefore should admit you're wrong. Not rocket science we're talking here.
But to give you your due, it's true that much of what I say could be replaced by an up-vote/down-vote button.
Interesting. I've always assumed that Scent of Violets is female; it seems like a female name.
If he's going to get whupped he's going to get whupped by a _boy_, dammit!
You don't suppose a mere girl could thrash him so easily do you? To say so out loud would be an insult.
She is a troll who only comes on here to make personal insults. Just ignore her.
Dude, factual statements are not insults.
But hey! You made an insult, so I guess you admit you're a troll?
MAY being the operative word here, to the point that the judge didn't actually enjoin or stay anything, only said the plaintiff might prevail.
Rather short of "tens of thousands of faculty members in CCCs ... compelled to promote speech that most, if not the vast majority of them, do not agree with."
It seems eternally beyond poor Leo's comprehension that it is this refusal to address a substantive point, let alone admit he was dead wrong, is precisely why he is so easily, so consistently outed as a troll.
Pro tip: Vagueness when making a claim doesn't make your assertion stronger; to the contrary, it weakens it.
AngryLeo has been screaming about this case for months. He has been corrected about the case and this particlar ruling before, but he hasnt corrected the way he misleadingly talks about it.
Its safe to assume thst Leo is a troll who is more than eager to lie and mislead.
I think his troll schtick is to pretend to be a liberal in every thread so that he can shriek at liberals about diversity, equity and race related topics as an 'insider'.
Yeah, that's our Leo. You wanna know the sad part? He really, truely believes that we won't twig to his stupid and very stale schtick. Even though it's, you know, amazingly cunning and nobody ever thought of that one before.
I just want to clarify. Is it your intention to state that the professors in the law suit wish to incorporate homogeny, inequity, and exclusion into the classroom? Or that they just don't like to be told the particulars of their conduct while on the job?
@painedumonde:
I feel that the contention of the lawsuit in question (against California Community Colleges), and the point of my posts above is very clear:
California Community Colleges are compelling pro-DEI and pro-antiracism speech from their faculty. In so doing, they are violating the faculty's free speech rights.
All of this strikes me as supremely obvious. We would not want Trump compelling anti-immigration speech among college faculty. Nor should we support College administrators compelling pro-DEI speech in community colleges.
In either case, the principle remains the same: no one can legally compel others to adopt and actively promote a given viewpoint.
The fact that so many on the Left, and in these comments, apparently have difficulty with this fundamental concept of life in an open society is profoundly bizarre and deeply concerning.
I think you are mistaken when you say that they are being compelled to adopt the viewpoint. They can run their lives as they please I'm sure. But those professors cannot run their classrooms as they see fit. They are employees of the State. There are codes of conduct in every position. Even at the Federalist Society. Or FIRE. Or RIFL. The promotion of it may be something of a problem, but I do not see the problem of diversity, equity, and inclusion as problematic. Do you? I know that's a little bait and switchy but what I'm getting at is: what is their actual complaint? Abiding by rules? Or is it abiding by rules they don't like?
When you say they are compelled to use anti-racist speech, that begs the question of do they wish to use racist speech.
I looked over some of the reading suggested by RIFL: D'Souza, Shapiro, Peterson, Reilly, Owens, Buckley, Rand (ugh), Hayek, Friedman, and of course the classics. Not one Chomsky, Baldwin, King, or Piketty. I get it, the professors have a point of view. Right or wrong they shouldn't be punished for it. But they must toe the line in their conduct in the classroom. As I did in the service. As I'm sure you do in your employment. It's a simple as that. If it's otherwise, say for instance the position that slavery was not the primary cause of the Civil War, then the professors can be discharged because of poor performance instead of being an asshole to the weird kids.
You can get even more specific than that; have look: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/01/23/political-tensions-erupt-bakersfield-college Leo doesn't want to because specific examples of what he means by 'free speech' are actually examples disrespect, contempt, and 'hate speech'. These guys are nowhere near the line where one can argue with a straight face that their conduct is a free speech issue; no, calling BLM a hate group, for example, is not remotely a free speech issue.
This is very easy to follow, just click on successive links to the original cite. Bottom line, these guys are toxic, 'the civil war was all about states rights' . The bottom line -- and why I eschew labels for positions -- is that calling specific speech, actions, positions, etc. 'conservative' doesn't sanitize any of those things, any more than calling specific words, or deeds 'liberal' enobles them.
And that is my view as well. As Voltaire would die for your right to say it, I'm sure he would spit in their face with his last breath. C'est-à-dire, you can say it, but you can't escape the consequences. And that's what they want, to live as if they are the only soul in the world, every other soul a toy for their amusement. Selfish, self-centered, abusive, and the emotional maturity of toddlers. Me, me, me. When it's really us, us, us.
There's a whole lot of ground between "anti-racist" and racist.
There is, yet you chose to sit squarely on the racist side.
You really do your critics' work for them. You're too easy. You out yourself every time.
I urge you to reconsider your life. I know you won't, but I'll urge you to all the same.
"Liberal Democrat and author Greg Lukianoff"
You mean the president of FIRE? A liberal Democrat? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, good one.
Many, many people do no think systemic racism is "a thing". Why should the government be allowed to silence those opinions? Why would the government be allowed to evaluate employees on their "proficiency in diversity"? (Whatever the hell that means.) Why must they be of the opinion that diversity is necessarily good?
Many, many people, like you, believe things which are not true.
It does make them true.
Racism, by definition, is systemic. So is it your intention to say racism isn't a thing? Or just the many many people you speak of?
Oho! Well, you know what? "Many, many people think that trans students should be allowed to compete in high school women's athletics." So you're good with that, right? All your prior objections to your daughter's competing with trans athletes for scholarship prizes are now null and void, amirite?
In Florida the government tried to ban freespeech through a law that applies to all schools, under penalty of facing civil charges, which clearly violates the 1st amendment.
In California, even in your Fox News version of alternate facts, the policy you object is that, a policy, not a law, and it applies only within that institution, just like any other job requirement in any type of job. No one in California is at risk of being sued if they happen to be a spouting white supremacist crap, or saying that racism isn't real, or that reverse-racism is worse than actual racism like you regularly parrot here.
Even a white supremacist like yourself should be able to see that difference.
From the Atlantic Magazine on the California Community College regulations in question:
"A public system of higher education cannot compel faculty members to “promote” or “advocate for” ideas with which they disagree, to “articulate the importance” of approaches they deem overrated, or to describe the impact of something that they see as ineffectual. If you’re a progressive, imagine Governor Ron DeSantis passing a law requiring Florida college professors to be evaluated for hiring and tenure based on whether they promote, advocate for, and articulate the importance of color blindness and the positive impact of anti-communism. That leftists are pushing California’s rules does not make them less authoritarian."
Despite your protestations otherwise, there are indeed individuals at risk of getting fired (or denied tenure) because they aren't far left enough. That's wrong.
"A public system of higher education cannot compel faculty members to “promote” or “advocate for” ideas with which they disagree,"
So these faculty members want to promote racism in the classroom?
If a Math faculty member disagrees that 2+2 =4, are you saying the college can't compel him to teach that 2+2 =4?
Your "logic" has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Under the court's logic it would seem that a company has a First Amendment right to rewrite employee attendance at trainings that teach that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.
That can't be right.
It's not right and it doesn't seem that way, you deliberately stupid troll,
I quote:
"Florida’s law, the Individual Freedom Act, bans certain mandatory workplace trainings.... Discussion of these topics, however, is not completely barred—the law prohibits requiring attendance only for sessions endorsing them. Employers can still require employees to attend sessions that reject these ideas"
It seems that if mandatory sessions that say all racial groups are equal are allowed then mandatory sessions that say the opposite must also be allowed.
...because it's not a free speech issue to say a course should be taught. Should we ban schools from requiring history or math?
Also, the factual basis as well as the harm basis of speech is relevant. We should ban doctors from telling their patients, or others, things which are not factual. We should ban advertising false statements about products. And we should crack down on libel and slander or stochastic terrorism.
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, they used that same 'we're regulating conduct, not speech' tactic in front of the Supreme Court with its regulation of social media. Given how this SCOTUS likes to find ways around the obviousness of words, we might still find SCOTUS ruling in favor of Florida in both cases.
money, of course, is speech and not conduct, though.
Good on the courts, and this will certainly save universities money, time, and embarrassment, but the fact is DeSantis achieved his objective. He Stood Tall against the Woke Menace that so threatens the poor beleaguered Whites of Florida, and with that he has further cemented their loyalty.
yep. and it got him 15 minutes of fame as one of the all-time presidential campaign flops.
And he's term-limited a/o '26 iirc, so that gives him a couple more years to screw up the state and ... maybe run for Senate? Or, I dunno, open a "University" that trains people to ... uh ... battle Wokeness! Yeah!
Lyndon Johnson's famous quote about poor White men emptying their pockets notwithstanding, I am regularly amazed at how eager "conservatives" are to chow down on cat sh!t labeled "caviar" that increasingly overt racists like Trump and DeSantis sell them.
Anytime a Mussolini wanabee like DeSantis loses in court (or just plain loses), it's good news.
There is something sad and funny how the Left turned into anti-free speech authoritarians in the 21st century.
... uh, yeah. For sure that happened! As what's described in this post definitely shows!
And more generally the threat of authoritarianism totally comes from the Left! Remember when Joe Biden said he would be a dictator on "day one" of his new term? Scary!
Remember Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Faschism? A real knee-slapper, that one.
You've convinced me with your incisive declaration of what the facts are. Um, wait ...
Trolls be trollin!
I prefer this type of troll to the endless, sanctimonious, repetitive rambling of Leo above. Both set out to make the same kind of lies and misdirections, but this is much more efficient.
Bingo! At least roboto is a *succinct* troll. Leo is a logorrheic one.
Citation not provided, as ever.
Yeah, how dare noted leftist Ron DeSantis champion this law! Wait, I'll com in again.
September 2023:
"On Friday, RealClear Opinion Research released the results of a survey showing that a slim majority of Democrats (53%) say that speech should be legal under any circumstances, with 47% saying it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.” Meanwhile, almost three-quarters (74%) of Republicans affirmed free speech under any circumstances."
Since I think we all agree that Slander should be illegal, that number should be 0%.
Yes. The first amendment says free speech shall not be abridged, yet free speech has been abridged in dozens of ways: we have laws against libel and slander; laws against false advertising and fraud; laws against threats, harassment and intimidation; laws against "fightin' words"; laws against plagiarism and laws protecting copyright; laws compelling truthful speech during court proceedings; etc.
Judges from all points of the political spectrum uphold these laws, in spite of the clear language of the first amendment, because they all understand that you cannot have a civil society without SOME restrictions on speech. But 74% of Republicans don't understand this.
And roboto thinks that's a good thing.
And roboto thinks that's a good thing.
Heh. It's worse than that; roboto thinks it's a coup de grâce scoring gotcha. Bangs head. Smarter trolls, please.
I’m ignoring the trolling. Just want to point out that I suspect the FL government knew all along this was likely to be thrown out eventually. The obvious intent was to get publicity for DeSantis’ presidential bid. Now that that’s over, they can let this die, it served its purpose.
Rename them etiquette classes.
The sad thing isn't just that this post seems to have drawn the trolls, it's that their trolling demonstrates their continued ignorance of how free speech rights function.
A 6th grade teacher, anywhere in the nation, can declare to his class on the first day that "Aryans are the master race and all other races are inferior. If you are not of Aryan blood it is unlikely you can succeed in this class." He cannot be arrested and jailed for expressing that opinion. He can and should be fired for it. And with the way social media works, he may also pay other social prices for saying it; those are also consequences of free speech. (Nor need it be controversial speech for you to be fired; try working the drive-in at a McDonalds and repeatedly saying "Welcome to Burger King; how may I take your order?" and then see if you can sue them over free speech violations when you are fired.)
Another distinction: if you exercise your free speech rights to confess that you committed crimes, you can be arrested and prosecuted for those crimes. That is not the same as being arrested and prosecuted for the act of talking about committing them. Being a neo-Nazi is not a crime; if you commit a crime, being a neo-Nazi is no protection from the consequences.
None of this is difficult to understand.
It's not difficult to understand that not even half of Democrats support free speech and this is an authoritarian sea change from 25 years ago.
Make all the rationalizations you want but there is now a 27 point gulf between free speech Republicans and anti-free speech Democrats.
Good God, man! Would you put at least some effort into your trolling?
Like, how did a survey face the argument about using the wrong greeting at work, or spouting racisms in class, have to do with free speech?
An illustration of which you speak:
https://thinc.blog/2024/03/05/chris-gloninger-on-paying-the-price-for-climate-truth-telling/
The reactionary trolling on free speech makes it imperative that we remember that "free speech" always has, and always will, mean only that the boundaries around protected speech be placed HERE rather than THERE.
To be blunt, everyone everywhere and at all times, holds that certain forms of speech and certain ideas are outside the boundaries and should not be protected and in fact must be punished.
Everyone believes this. There are no exceptions. There are quibbles over where the boundary shoul dbe drawn, disagreements over what sort of punishment is acceptable and by whom, but those are just quibbles.
Oh, everyone here knows this. Including Leo and Roboto. They're just roleplaying lone crusaders for Truths other people can't handle. Yes, that's a capital 'T' I'm afraid. These are sad, sad people.
I'll take this opportunity to say what, to me, everyone seems to be overlooking. According to Governor Ronald's own definition, woke is "The belief that there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."
Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/05/desantis-florida-woke-critical-race-theory/
He's a lawyer, so he doesn't want to get rid of the justice system. That leaves precisely one plausible explanation, which is the idea that the justice system should be defending in lieu of be addressing systemic injustices, and a person supports that because they are benefiting and not suffering from systemic injustices, which is why they like Russian President Vladimir.