"priests of democracy" is from a 1952 case on loyalty oaths being required to be a college professor. Justice Frankfurter wrote:

Quote:

---

To regard teachers -- in our entire educational system, from the primary grades to the university -- as the priests of our democracy is therefore not to indulge in hyperbole. It is the special task of teachers to foster those habits of open-mindedness and critical inquiry which alone make for responsible citizens, who, in turn, make possible an enlightened and effective public opinion. Teachers must fulfill their function by precept and practice, by the very atmosphere which they generate; they must be exemplars of open-mindedness and free inquiry. They cannot carry out their noble task if the conditions for the practice of a responsible and critical mind are denied to them. They must have the freedom of responsible inquiry, by thought and action, into the meaning of social and economic ideas, into the checkered history of social and economic dogma. They must be free to sift evanescent doctrine, qualified by time and circumstance, from that restless, enduring process of extending the bounds of understanding and wisdom, to assure which the freedoms

---

43rd Street Posse said:

---

How I view several lib male posters here.



It truly is a religion with these people.

---

woe to you liberals who love the chief seats and the adoration of those who believe their misinformation.

BMX Bandit said:

---

"priests of democracy" is from a 1952 case on loyalty oaths being required to be a college professor. Justice Frankfurter wrote:

Quote:

---

To regard teachers -- in our entire educational system, from the primary grades to the university -- as the priests of our democracy is therefore not to indulge in hyperbole. It is the special task of teachers to foster those habits of open-mindedness and critical inquiry which alone make for responsible citizens, who, in turn, make possible an enlightened and effective public opinion. Teachers must fulfill their function by precept and practice, by the very atmosphere which they generate; they must be exemplars of open-mindedness and free inquiry. They cannot carry out their noble task if the conditions for the practice of a responsible and critical mind are denied to them. They must have the freedom of responsible inquiry, by thought and action, into the meaning of social and economic ideas, into the checkered history of social and economic dogma. They must be free to sift evanescent doctrine, qualified by time and circumstance, from that restless, enduring process of extending the bounds of understanding and wisdom, to assure which the freedoms

---

---

Must....defend....fellow....lawyer...

not saying it does, letting people know the origin if anyone interested. i haven't read the opinion from Florida judge, so don't know the context of his use or whether the opinion is good or bad.

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.

must.... log into... different...user name.


I talk about how terrible lawyers are all the time here. not defending anyone. try again Boo.

I appreciate the context

BMX Bandit said:

---

must.... log into... different...user name.


I talk about how terrible lawyers are all the time here. not defending anyone. try again Boo.

---

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.

CoachO_08 said:

---

sigh...

We aren't a democracy.

---

This is a federal judges reaching down into a state matter citing as reasoning a political slogan which mischaracterizes the very nature of our government.

This partisan needs to be impeached and removed.

Rapier108 said:

---

Judge Mark Walker

Appointed by Obama

---

excited to see the appellate court back DeSantis

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?

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.

---

Florida needs to SECEDE.

Many would follow Florida's lead.

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.

How open are they to bringing Bible reading back into schools?

When I was in 1st grade my teacher Miss Morelock would read Bible stories to us during our morning "nap time".

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.

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.

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.

---

When professors are employees of state funded schools acting in official capacity for their employer, they aren't at all engaged in "free speech." They are by definition engaged in "contracted speech." What they say in their own time outside of official capacities is their business, but what goes on in the classroom can and should align with the will of those financing said education.

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?

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.

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?

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.