jrdaustin said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

What we allow / do not allow ISD / quasi-government employees to teach kids in school has nothing to do with free speech or the first amendment...

---

That is not what this ruling is about. It's about what university professors are allowed to say in their classroom.

---

Again, university professors can say what they wish, as long as challenging their ideas is also fair game in the classroom. If they are postulating an idea, and then allow no discussion, dissention, or questioning of that idea; followed by a grading system in which agreement with that idea is required in order to receive a passing grade, can you not see where the environment has moved from an educational one to one of indoctrination?

---

According to the law, no they can't do the above bolded on 8 things Florida says are no-nos. They can speak academically about something like affirmative action, but must not hold or espouse a position. It's not about grading fairly (which should be a default position) it's about saying what a professor can and cannot espouse in their classroom. Here's a snippet from the ruling:

The IFA also included a so-called "savings clause,"6 which states that the foregoing "may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a larger course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts." 1000.05(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2022). Thus, professors may "discuss" the eight concepts listed above in class, but they must do so "in an objective manner" and "without endorsement of the concepts."

Admiral Adama said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

It's interesting to see how many of you are OK with the government restricting free speech as long as it's restricting free speech that you don't like.

---

I haven't spent much time on this yet, but I'm seeing a MAJOR discrepancy between what you're alleging and what the injunction is actually affecting.

In short, you appear to say that the law would not allow a guest speaker from speaking their mind in an open forum.

However, the language of the law affected by the injunction appears to address mandatory trainings and classroom environments where a captive audience is involved - ie. you could either lose your job, or get a failing grade if you don't agree to be subjected to the "ideas" of the speaker.

These are two diametrically opposed scenarios. One would fall under free speech protections, while the other would not.

So what am I missing?

---

In Florida law, if Sonia Sotomayer was an invited guest to speak in the Florida Law School classroom during normal classroom hours, rather than some outside event hosted by a club, and she spoke about her views on affirmative action, the professor could be fired for that.

---

I think that's a reach, and why this will be overturned on appeal.

This is literally what what the law is defending: If Sotomayer, or anyone else, informed certain members of a classroom that they themselves were responsible for "systemic racism" simply because they are a given skin color; and, by "definition", they were racists, THEN she would be violating the law. THAT is what the law is addressing, and I'm okay with that.

jrdaustin said:

---

If Sotomayer, or anyone else, informed certain members of a classroom that they themselves were responsible for "systemic racism" simply because they are a given skin color; and, by "definition", they were racists, THEN she would be violating the law. THAT is what the law is addressing, and I'm okay with that.

---

If this is the case, (and I am going to guess its not), then that is definitely a violation of the 1st Amendment.

You can't make it illegal to tell someone they are racist because of their skin color.

#6 on the list of prohibited topics is:

6. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion

The state of Florida in their argument to the court conceded that this is affirmative action by another name. As written, a professor could be fired for that.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Doesn't make it much better.

And i disagree with the judge there, it's most certainly hyperbole

It also would appear this urrent judge that quoted it pulled it completely out onf context

---

I don't think so on the first part. The original judge fully understood that an education system in a democracy must allow and encourage debate on and the exchange of different ideas in order for the democracy to function properly. In that sense, teachers are the priests of democracy by presiding over and encouraging the acts of debate and exchange in a classroom that are the driving force of democracy in the halls of government. We can't expect the open debate and free exchange of ideas in government is we can't teach it in a classroom.

I think this judge misapplied it, re your second point. The Florida law, as I understand it, does not concern the specific content of a particular subject, but the subject in its entirety and when it may be broached. There's a certain neutrality there that I think he doesn't want to acknowledge. Free and open debate over ideas is necessary in a classroom, but free and open debate must also occur over ideas that appropriate for the classroom in question. It also demands that teachers not teach political or personal opinions as facts, and that is certainly something the alphabet community does.

Admiral Adama said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

It's interesting to see how many of you are OK with the government restricting free speech as long as it's restricting free speech that you don't like.

---

I haven't spent much time on this yet, but I'm seeing a MAJOR discrepancy between what you're alleging and what the injunction is actually affecting.

In short, you appear to say that the law would not allow a guest speaker from speaking their mind in an open forum.

However, the language of the law affected by the injunction appears to address mandatory trainings and classroom environments where a captive audience is involved - ie. you could either lose your job, or get a failing grade if you don't agree to be subjected to the "ideas" of the speaker.

These are two diametrically opposed scenarios. One would fall under free speech protections, while the other would not.

So what am I missing?

---

In Florida law, if Sonia Sotomayer was an invited guest to speak in the Florida Law School classroom during normal classroom hours, rather than some outside event hosted by a club, and she spoke about her views on affirmative action, the professor could be fired for that.

---

Ok. Views on affirmative action. Got it. Now tell me which one of the 8 ideas/situations in the law (listed below) prohibits a conversation about affirmative action. And by the way, if you find one, please enlighten us as to whether you're okay with it, and why:

1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are
morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or
national origin.
2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,
whether consciously or unconsciously.
3. An individual's moral character or status as either
privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
race, color, sex, or national origin.
4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin
cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to
race, color, sex, or national origin.
5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be
discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,
actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,
color, sex, or national origin.
6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive
adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or
any other form of psychological distress on account of his or
her race, color, sex, or national origin.
8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness,
neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or
sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color,
sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race,
color, sex, or national origin.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-positively-dystopian-violation-judge-strikes-down-desantis-anti-woke-attack-on-free-speech/ar-AA14glSf

Quote:

---

A federal judge with the U.S. District Court for Florida's Northern District has delivered an order blocking a section of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R) Stop WOKE Act.

If our 'priests of democracy' are not allowed to shed light on challenging ideas, then democracy will die in darkness," Walker wrote.

---

That's some effed up language the judge is using.

---

It shouldn't have been in an opinion (and its a bit of a shout out to The Devil's Advocate), but from a theoretical perspective, the rule of law, at its core, is essentially codified religion with the absence of god.

BMX Bandit said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

If Sotomayer, or anyone else, informed certain members of a classroom that they themselves were responsible for "systemic racism" simply because they are a given skin color; and, by "definition", they were racists, THEN she would be violating the law. THAT is what the law is addressing, and I'm okay with that.

---

If this is the case, (and I am going to guess its not), then that is definitely a violation of the 1st Amendment.

You can't make it illegal to tell someone they are racist because of their skin color.

---

In an open forum setting, sure. But you damn sure can in a mandatory captive environment where agreement is required in order to retain employment or a good grade. That is not covered under the first amendment.

And actually, if you swap the colors, it already is. You'd be prosecuted under a hate crime. And justifiably so.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

I got bored after reading half of his long ruling, but I didn't see any citations of a political slogan as a legal basis, for why the state restrictions on the speech of university professors at public universities is not a violation of the first amendment. Which specific parts of the ruling used a slogan for a legal foundation?

---

"Democracy dies in darkness". Not sure if the quote is from his ruling or a subsequent statement, but when a slogan is used exclusively in association with one political alignment - it becomes a political slogan.

---

That quote could equally apply if California passed a law that made it a fireable offense for any California university professor or their invited guests to say that there are only two genders in its hypothetical "Stop M.A.G.A. Act. ". If if Florida can determine what speech its university professors are allowed and not allowed to say, that means California can too. The correct result is not regulating free-speech in places where there's a long and established condition of free-speech existing.

---

Yes: I am ok with CA imposing their values over what is said in CA state funded schools.

"Professor" isn't some magical authority to usurp the interests of your employer. Florida is setting parameters to keep professors in their lane, just as any other employer may in dozens of ways (dress codes, sops, directed verbal announcements, limitations on certain speech, etc).

Blame the profs: if they policed their own there wouldn't be a reason for the state to establish guardrails. But profs taking state money and poisoning the minds of their kids SHOULD result in corrective action from the state. It is appropriate to censor and fire a math teacher who teaches that 2+2=5.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Agthatbuilds said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-positively-dystopian-violation-judge-strikes-down-desantis-anti-woke-attack-on-free-speech/ar-AA14glSf

Quote:

---

Quote:
A federal judge with the U.S. District Court for Florida's Northern District has delivered an order blocking a section of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R) Stop WOKE Act.

If our 'priests of democracy' are not allowed to shed light on challenging ideas, then democracy will die in darkness," Walker wrote.

---

That's some effed up language the judge is using.

---

It shouldn't have been in an opinion (and its a bit of a shout out to The Devil's Advocate), but from a theoretical perspective, the rule of law, at its core, is essentially codified religion with the absence of god.

---

I think the notion that professors/educators are "priests of democracy" is the most offensive part.

Number six is affirmative action. The State of Florida conceded that number six is affirmative action. Whether or not I agree with affirmative action, I strongly disagree with the idea that someone that wants to talk about affirmative action in the University classroom as an advocate is someone that should be fired.

Quote:

---

In an open forum setting, sure. But you damn sure can in a mandatory captive environment where agreement is required in order to retain employment or a good grade. That is not covered under the first amendment.

---

that is not what the law is. there is clear precedent that says you cannot tell a professor he cannot discuss things. its absolutely a first amendment violation. (speaking generally, going to read opinion now)

Quote:

---

And actually, if you swap the colors, it already is. You'd be prosecuted under a hate crime. And justifiably so.

---

that is false. there is no hate crime law that gets you prosecuted for saying someone is racist because of the color of their skin.

Admiral Adama said:

---

#6 on the list of prohibited topics is:

6. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion

The state of Florida in their argument to the court conceded that this is affirmative action by another name. As written, a professor could be fired for that.

---

My guess is the appeal will address affirmative action in general vs. discrimination in the specific due to achieve a DEI objective.

And if I remember correctly, this is being litigated in multiple states now as we speak.

And it does not prohibit discussions about affirmative action. If someone wants to advocate for affirmative action, they, or someone else, is required to offer the opposing view and/or the unintended consequences that affirmative action can spawn. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

Just FYI, and as one more example of how Desantis preps and thinks ahead, he and his people were already prepared for this judge to block it and they have full confidence that the next court who's much more conservative will overturn this ruling.

No lawyer here, just passing along a part of the story that's not in the OP.

Education is a state right and responsibility.

Tell that judge to pound sand

I am not OK with Florida or California compelling or requiring prior restraint of speech in the university classroom. If you're in for a penny here you're in for a pound, on all sorts of odious topics that states might think are a good idea to regulate. Free-speech is a brilliant concept. Don't mess with it.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

And actually, if you swap the colors, it already is. You'd be prosecuted under a hate crime. And justifiably so.

---

that is false. there is no hate crime law that gets you prosecuted for saying someone is racist because of the color of their skin.

---

I'm not gonna test that, and I would advise you not to as well.

Where are parental rights in the public school classroom? I'll regard Universities as a completely different realm for the purposes of this discussion.

BMX Bandit said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

If Sotomayer, or anyone else, informed certain members of a classroom that they themselves were responsible for "systemic racism" simply because they are a given skin color; and, by "definition", they were racists, THEN she would be violating the law. THAT is what the law is addressing, and I'm okay with that.

---

If this is the case, (and I am going to guess its not), then that is definitely a violation of the 1st Amendment.

You can't make it illegal to tell someone they are racist because of their skin color.

---

how are you not making a circular argument here? You've basically come full circle to defend discrimination under a 1st amendment protection.

Quote:

---

how are you not making a circular argument here? You've basically come full circle to defend discrimination under a 1st amendment protection.

---

what circular argument? no idea what this even means.

discrimination based on race has nothing to do with first amendment. those are federal statues.

Admiral Adama said:

---

I am not OK with Florida or California compelling or requiring prior restraint of speech in the university classroom. If you're in for a penny here you're in for a pound, on all sorts of odious topics that states might think are a good idea to regulate. Free-speech is a brilliant concept. Don't mess with it.

---

…what do you think a classroom is?!?

It's a transactional environment. $ exchanged for knowledge. Or at least that's what the credential at completion of coursework is supposed to indicate.

The parties paying for knowledge / information don't have any obligation to pay for sour lessons or finance useless pontificators. Professors can do what they want on their own time (such as an after hours event) but perform to expectation during contractual hours.

my quick take:

if the FL law just said it prohibits "training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels . . . students or employees to believe (eight specified concepts listed above, then it would probably be unconstitutionally vague and also violate 1st amendment.

what potentially saves this from first amendment violation in my opinion is the aptly named saving clause. it says:

the foregoing "may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a larger course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts."

this opens it up to allow discussion on the issues. the judge says that "endorsement" make it unconstitutional. i disagree. its not an easy question though for #6 as discussed above. it would stop someone from saying they support affirmative action.

For the purposes of this thread, the judges rulings were related specifically to the university setting. Parental rights in K-12 are a tricky subject. If you have a liberal parent and a conservative parent that both want to advocate for a specific point of view in the classroom, I don't think in general, the state or local district should cow-tow to either one because parents rights are sacrosanct. There are a lot of cranks out there and just because they hold a view does not mean the school district needs to consider it when thinking through how to teach kids math or history in the classroom. Content should be about analysis in critical, thinking, rather than endorsing, or promoting one view over often other.

BMX Bandit said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

If Sotomayer, or anyone else, informed certain members of a classroom that they themselves were responsible for "systemic racism" simply because they are a given skin color; and, by "definition", they were racists, THEN she would be violating the law. THAT is what the law is addressing, and I'm okay with that.

---

If this is the case, (and I am going to guess its not), then that is definitely a violation of the 1st Amendment.

You can't make it illegal to tell someone they are racist because of their skin color.

---

Can you not regulate speech in the procured of conducting state funded education with the students compelled to attend and in an unequal relationship with the instructor?

It's one thing for two adults to debate or one adult to speak opinion to another. It is another for an adult or authority figure to instruct a captive Audience with an unequal relationship as they please. There's a distinction there.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Brief summary of the ruling: Florida said that professors and their guests are not allowed to express opinions on 8 topics, one of which includes support of affirmative action. Florida argued that the state employees have to follow state rules and if the state doesn't want them to express certain viewpoints it has that right. This judge said, no, there is a long and established history of allowing first amendment speech that is free from state restrictions in the university, whether that university is publicly or privately funded. He pointed out that under the law, if the University of Florida law school invited, Sonia Sotomayer to express her views on affirmative action, it would be grounds to launch an investigation and potentially fire the professor that invited her.

---

Where was this judge when the Kentucky clerk didn't want to process same sex marriage licenses?

as said on p. 1: states can set curriculum and classes without violating the 1st amendment. its when they restrict what can be discussed or talked about when constitutional violations can arise. will try to read it later or over weekend.

Admiral Adama said:

---

For the purposes of this thread, the judges rulings were related specifically to the STATE university setting. Parental rights in K-12 are a tricky subject. …

---

You keep glossing over this critical detail. These aren't private schools. These places are connected (financially and governance wise) to the state.

its because its the STATE that the 1st amendment issues potentially arise that don't come up with your private employer.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

I got bored after reading half of his long ruling, but I didn't see any citations of a political slogan as a legal basis, for why the state restrictions on the speech of university professors at public universities is not a violation of the first amendment. Which specific parts of the ruling used a slogan for a legal foundation?

---

"Democracy dies in darkness". Not sure if the quote is from his ruling or a subsequent statement, but when a slogan is used exclusively in association with one political alignment - it becomes a political slogan.

---

That quote could equally apply if California passed a law that made it a fireable offense for any California university professor or their invited guests to say that there are only two genders in its hypothetical "Stop M.A.G.A. Act. ". If if Florida can determine what speech its university professors are allowed and not allowed to say, that means California can too. The correct result is not regulating free-speech in places where there's a long and established condition of free-speech existing.

---

You have my pulling for the Cylons and hoping the Galatica crashes in Malibu. You know this is all going one way LEFT. so spare me this sort of BS.

I'm amazed how far you have gone along with the left. There was was a time when you were a great poster. But you have bought into the drivel.

Correct, which, in addition to what BMX is already said, means that you were effectively ceding power to the state to regulate speech in the classroom. If the state has that power, where do you place the limits on the power? I think a result of a few cranks having access to a dais and probably sparsely attended classrooms is better than one where the state gets to tell it's employees what political opinions they are allowed to promote in the University classroom and which ones they aren't.

Do you have an actual argument about the substance of what I said or do you just want to insult me? I'm especially interested what about my position that the government should not regulate speech, whether it's about affirmative action, or how many genders there are, makes me a leftist.

Admiral Adama said:

---

It's interesting to see how many of you are OK with the government restricting free speech as long as it's restricting free speech that you don't like.

---

The really good thing about restriction of speech is it's the #1 way to see who the genuine liars are.

Those for censoring of speech, writing, and ideas are the guaranteed liars and puppets.

BMX Bandit said:

---

its because its the STATE that the 1st amendment issues potentially arise that don't come up with your private employer.

---

The tax payer has ZERO OBLIGATION to finance their employees in indoctrination of their children with destabilizing ideologies.

Employees serve their Employers or they stop being Employees.

Just because you walk across a stage in a funny hat doesn't mean you're special.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

its because its the STATE that the 1st amendment issues potentially arise that don't come up with your private employer.

---

The tax payer has ZERO OBLIGATION to finance their employees in indoctrination of their children with destabilizing ideologies.

Employees serve their Employers or they stop being Employees.

Just because you walk across a stage in a funny hat doesn't mean you're special.

---

Agree with all three of your statements. Doesn't have anything to do with my post though as 1st amendment applies with the employer is the state.

Quote:

---

The really good thing about restriction of speech is it's the #1 way to see who the genuine liars are.

Those for censoring of speech, writing, and ideas are the guaranteed liars and puppets.

---

But isn't this just censoring speech in the workplace? This is the state telling employees they can't discuss certain, defined topics in the workplace. They're free to spout their racist, leftist drivel outside the classroom to people who are not a captive audience.