Federal Judge Blocks Florida Law Banning 'Woke' Workplace Training
Ban on mandatory training of certain race topics “is a naked viewpoint-based regulation on speech.”
When Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Individual Freedom Act (a.k.a. the "Stop WOKE Act") in April, he made it absolutely clear that his intent was to censor private speech.
"In Florida, we will not let the far-left woke agenda take over our schools and workplaces. There is no place for indoctrination or discrimination in Florida," he said.
On Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, spent 44 pages of a decision patiently explaining that using government force to ban discussions of issues DeSantis doesn't like is blatantly unconstitutional and ordered the state not to enforce the law.
The Individual Freedom Act (IFA) bans both schools and businesses from teaching or training students or employees a list of eight controversial ideas the law's proponents associate with critical race theory. They include controversial concepts like the belief that people of a certain race are inherently racist or sexist (consciously or unconsciously), that people of a certain race are responsible for the racist behavior of their ancestors, or that certain values (like belief in excellence, hard work, or fairness) are racist in origin or used to oppress other races.
We can debate whether these are good or bad ideas. What's not debatable is whether the state of Florida has the legal power to stop private employers from teaching these ideas. It does not, and by implementing the IFA, Walker notes that this part of the act "is a naked viewpoint-based regulation on speech that does not pass strict scrutiny" and cannot be enforced.
The state was sued by two employers (Honeyfund and Primo) who want to mandate training to employees that might violate this law and consulting firms (Orrin and Whitespace Consulting) who provide such training. They fear potential state investigations and lost business as a result of the IFA. Walker agreed that this gave the businesses standing to sue to attempt to block the law's enforcement.
Walker quickly punctures Florida's defense of the law by pointing out how it is clearly an attempt to censor one side of the debate but not the other:
Because the IFA covers any required activity, an employer could require every employee to read Woke, Inc., Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam but could not require employees to read The Color of Law. Worse still, a nonprofit corporation devoted to promoting the idea that white privilege exists could not hold a required meeting at which it endorses the concept of white privilege. But a nonprofit holding the opposite view could freely hold meetings criticizing the concept of white privilege.
The speech orientation of the law is clearly not neutral: It censors only one position on the controversy based on its viewpoint. Walker further rejects the state's attempt to say that the act aims to regulate conduct, not speech. (This argument may be familiar to libertarians, who have seen states use it to try to unduly control who is and is not allowed to give advice.) Walker notes that laws against racist conduct at the workplace can be identified separately from speech. But IFA can only be understood through the lens of what is and is not said. It is entirely a regulation of speech, not conduct.
Walker then subjects the law to strict scrutiny, requiring the state to prove that it has a compelling interest to justify engaging in such censorship. To put it mildly, constitutional law is not on the state's side here.
"The First Amendment does not give the state license to censor speech because it finds it 'repugnant,' no matter how captive the audience," Walker writes. "And even assuming the IFA serves a compelling government interest—like prohibiting discrimination—it is not narrowly tailored. In large part, this is because the [Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992] already prohibited much of what Defendants claim the IFA aims to prohibit. For example, a diversity and inclusion training could be so offensive, and so hostile to White employees, that it could create a hostile work environment. That is already illegal—as both parties acknowledge." Walker concludes that the IFA attacks ideas, not conduct, and so the plaintiffs are likely to win the case.
Walker also agrees with the plaintiffs that the IFA is "impermissibly vague" in how it defines the forbidden ideas, leaving it for the state to resolve and leaving employers unclear about what sort of discussion about race is and is not forbidden.
DeSantis' own deliberate politicization of the issue is brought up as evidence that this is all viewpoint-based government censorship:
As detailed above, the IFA is designed to exorcise these viewpoints out of the marketplace of ideas—Governor DeSantis went so far as to call it the STOP WOKE Act at a press conference with children waving anti-critical race theory signs.
And so, Walker agreed to enjoin the state for now from enforcing the business training component. The American Civil Liberties Union is suing Florida to try to block the school discussion ban part of the bill as well.
The judicial smackdown against the state of Florida here looks remarkably similar to what happened in May with the DeSantis-approved bill that attempted to force social media companies to carry political messages by candidates for office. That law has also been temporarily enjoined as unconstitutional. While the reason appears to be in the opposite direction (Florida attempting to mandate that companies carry certain speech rather than ban it), the foundational issue is the same: The governor and lawmakers of Florida do not have as much authority to tell businesses operating in their state what sorts of speech are or are not permitted there as they claim.
What does this mean for the other high-profile DeSantis-supported speech bill—H.B. 1557, the Parental Rights in Education Bill, a.k.a. the "Don't Say Gay Bill"? It's also being challenged in federal court by families and educators as violating the First Amendment for the way it censors classroom discussions on LGBT issues.
Florida, of course, does have the power to determine classroom curriculum for public schools, and defenders of H.B. 1557 insist the law is about preventing inappropriate sexual discussions in kindergarten through third-grade classrooms. But that's not actually what the law says. The law forbids any instruction on "sexual orientation or gender identity" at all in those grades and then further prohibits any instruction throughout public schooling that is not "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate" for students without defining what any of that means.
The end result has been wide disagreement with what H.B. 1557 actually bans, prompting books to be removed from libraries and teachers to claim they're being told to not wear clothing that could invite children to ask questions about LGBT issues (like shirts with rainbow flags on them and the like). It's not clear that the law actually forbids it, but the lawsuit leans heavily on noting that the vagueness of H.B. 1557 leads to a chilling effect, particularly because it gives parents the power to sue and seek damages if any school district violates the ban.
And so Judge Walker's observation that the IFA is "impermissibly vague" may end up being relevant to the ultimate fate of the Parental Rights in Education Bill. The courts have rightly taken a dim view of laws that restrict rights and invite punishment in ways where it's not clear to the layperson what behavior violates the law.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Schools and businesses”…..one of these things is not like the other. Governments control schools. How can the government not set the agenda?
Different for businesses.
I agree. I will say that people talking to one another at work is not the business of the government. But, people have begun to accept the idea that if you tell someone they “look nice today” that you can be fired for that. But, if you say, “White people are evil,” then that’s okay. I have no words for this.
Bullshit works fine. Fuck You if your feeling feisty. Bang! Bang! Bang! is probably most appropriate.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (alp–537) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
———->>> https://shortest.link/3Rbg
Free speech is an inalienable right. It belongs to every person and by definition can’t be given, sold or taken away.
Nobody, not government or private, can therefore coerce anyone to do so.
The ONLY purpose for lying is to criminally coerce others with misinformation to make decisions in the liars interest instead of their own. It is already criminalized in court to create an environment of justice with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
All lying should be criminalized.
Similarly anyone is a better advocate for the ownership and use of firearms by opposing their criminal use.
Criminalizing lying eliminates woke statements.
Agreed. States set all kinds of standards for school curriculums.
I would also argue, that for K-12 schools, classroom instruction is government speech, not the private speech of the teacher.
Also applies to private schools, does it not? Or does Florida even allow private schools?
LOL @ your stupidity.
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, (res-08) I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
.
After reading this article:>>>>> https://workhere3.blogspot.com/
I don’t see where the Federal Govt has any say in this. States can mandate in private corporations’ removal of cultural Marxism at any level. This is a threat to liberty. No one should be forced to be politically indoctrinated where they are told they are subhuman and are part of some mythical “oppressor” system.
Believe me most corporate professionals would support this..many are moving to Florida. Sick of discriminatory treatment of certain tribes by woke big tech
“Cultural Marxism” is an anti-Semitic code word, you know. But you’re okay with that, obviously.
Could he try again and just ban government funding of woke education?
He doesn’t need to try again. Those two aspects of the bill are severable. The decision above only found the restriction on private employers’ speech to be unconstitutional.
There is an entirely separate litigation on the ‘school discussion ban’.
Just wait for the hostile workplace lawsuits to start. Meh.
Because he’s got to get his culture war on for his presidential run, that’s why.
Just in time for your holiday viewing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11124473/Teaser-Son-Hunter-touts-sensational-scandalous-true-story-Biden-family-corruption.html
Oh and they did NOT take his passports.
W… we… well, ok so they DID take his passports, but they’ll be returned to him.
What does Sky News think it’s doing?
Journalism. Wow, weird. Haven’t seen that in a while.
They didn’t do it and they won’t do it again, and some new lefty troll on one of the Trump threads reached up his ass to claim “95% of this happened under Trump!”
I disagree with the ruling, but I so intensely hate the left and wokeness that its kinda like we are censoring the censors on this. If we were to say that people who are in the workplace are not allowed to say, “Nice butt,” to a coworker, then is it okay to tell them that you can’t say, “You should hate all white people,” is appropriate similarly?
“The First Amendment does not give the state license to censor speech because it finds it ‘repugnant,’ no matter how captive the audience,”
And the rest of the Constitution doesn’t give the Federal Government so much as a drop of power to impose darlings of the progressive movement like the the Social Security Act or the Civil Rights Act (and all of their bastard offspring). Yet here we find ourselves. Fuck the woke, it is time there was pushback every time they decided they could have it both ways.
Someone from the conservative side, explain how the fuck you justify this “Stop the Woke Act” as being in any way constitutional. Something other than “But the Left fucked the First Amendment first!” I know the Left are evil idiots, but why do you insist on being just like them?
The government granted itself the power to regulate speech with the Civil Rights Amendment. Putting up a ‘whites only sign’ is just as wrong as a ‘blacks only sign’ and a clear violation of the CRA. A business that makes you sit in a class and makes you affirm one race is bad and one is good is no different.
Bingo.
Woke is racism, straight up.
The faux libertarians at Reason, who would never utter a single word against the CRA, will just have to eat it.
I don’t know it that well, but the school side might be simply due to how restricted teacher’s speech has been interpreted to be in the jurisprudence of the last century or so. Maybe not.
I’m not surprised at all for this ruling on the business side of things though. That seemed like a big swing.
I still think this is going about the anti-wokeness the wrong way though.
If the employer can now push the employee to submit to DEI crap, the employer can also dictate what curriculum is acceptable in their school.
DeSantis’s actions are ironically stifling any legitimate criticism of CRT, too. He’s inadvertently making his targets woke martyrs instead.
bingo.. anti-wokeness was for a decade a rather rigorous intellectual exercise.. now it’s become the preserve of mouth-breathing conformists, an army of dullards all repeating the same four talking points they heard on Hannity
It interesting that left wingers lose their ability to think whenever they get their talking points.
Employees are hired specifically to deliver the message of the employer, in this case the government. The idea that the employer cannot control its own message is fucking idiotic. Comparing this to generic free speech is stupid and indicative of the left’s inability to understand what anyone is even talking about.
I know the Left are evil idiots, but why do you insist on being just like them?
So, when I was younger, a cat climbed into my truck’s engine for warmth. I don’t know how, the truck was a POS, but somehow when the truck was started the cat got caught in the timing belt and threw the whole thing off. Thankfully, none of the valves were obviously fucked. My taking the time to clean out the cat guts and realign the timing belt, even if it takes me a couple of tries and missteps, doesn’t necessarily make the cat evil or me as idiotic as the cat.
Equal protection, you absolutely idiotic, totalitarian cock sucking clump of cancer
You’re a totalitarian yourself and you know it.
It’s not constitutional. Any more than it’s not constitutional for it to be illegal for a business to have a viewpoint-based meeting about how they’re not going to be hiring niggers.
It’s not constitutional only if you try to honor a universal principle. If you believe that anti-racist racism is good, but racist racism is bad, then you are just a partisan asshole.
Replace good and bad with legal and illegal.
Or, not hire any poofters…
Because they are evil..this started with portions of the CRA which had nothing to do with stopping govt from discriminating and forcing private individuals from discriminating. Along with the infestation in academia, media, and govt by socialists and marxists mostly from central and eastern europe who have pushed for decades a race based instead of class based marxist agenda.
“marxists mostly from central and eastern europe who have pushed for decades a race based instead of class based marxist agenda.”
Just say “Jews” already.
“Someone from the conservative side, explain how the fuck you justify this “Stop the Woke Act” as being in any way constitutional…”
I don’t think it is, but arguing from the constitution regarding business behavior was pretty much discarded in 1964 (under a D POTUS, lefty apologist).
Much as Congress constitutional authority to declare war was made moot in 1950 (under a D POTUS, lefty apologist).
So as a lefty apologist, please explain how either of those is in any way constitutional.
That’s because DeSantis isn’t in any way a limited-government conservative himself. He is all for Big Government, and so are his supporters (as much as they deny it).
I’m sure you can explain his “big government” non-shutdown also, right, lefty shit?
So someone can hang a big sign on their private business saying ‘blacks are inferior’ because that is their constitutionally protected view point? And this will not run afoul of the CRA?
Under existing (if scant) case law, that would be unlawful discrimination under Title II of the CRA. A business hanging such a sign even while actually permitting blacks to shop there is still engaging in discrimination.
The Masterpiece case skirted the issue of the CRA vs. First Amendment, so I expect it will come up again.
Current constitutional interpretation says that the First Amendment does not permit all types of speech, most notably perhaps “obscenity.” There are many exceptions to the First Amendment that are permitted with a compelling enough government interest.
So it would likewise be against the CRA to force people to attend a trianing that ‘teaches’ whites are inferior?
Absolutely.
“Ban on mandatory training of certain race topics “is a naked viewpoint-based regulation on speech.”
The operative word is MANDATORY. When it becomes mandatory for a student, an employee, or any citizen to sit obediently while being lectured to about “the problem of whiteness”, or any other CRT/LGBTQ/woke dejure propaganda, that is where the line is crossed. The proper place for such hate inspired talk is the radical mosque, or Farrakan’s lectures, of Westboro Baptist.
There is also the “training” aspect. The employer is not merely desiring the employee listen to it, but also agree with it, or at a minimum, comply with it.
Indeed. I have first-hand experience with this kind of “training”.
The only bright side is that most who endured it set about quietly subverting its stated goals. It hurts to keep your mouth shut during this ugly propaganda but there is some satisfaction in blocking its ugly effect whenever the opportunity arises.
There is the explicit Mandatory training as in “all shall attend”. Certainly problematic. Then there is, I believe, the much more implicit Mandatory training as in, if you want to thrive here, be a team player, earn a solid bonus, be considered for promotion, etc. it’s probably a good idea you attend. Also, when a manager gets an annual DEI performance goal such as ” describe how you supported DEI initiatives in your work unit”, you can bet the implicit comes down hard. Woke corporations excel at pushing to the line without crossing it.
Speaking of the Westboro Baptist Church, Nardz should just join it already.
“”The First Amendment does not give the state license to censor speech because it finds it ‘repugnant,’ no matter how captive the audience,…”
The state government does not have the power to regulate the employer’s speech to employees…
“… the [Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992] already prohibited much of what Defendants claim the IFA aims to prohibit. For example, a diversity and inclusion training could be so offensive, and so hostile to White employees, that it could create a hostile work environment.”
…except that it does have the power to regulate speech by this law.
Maybe the argument is that law is too poorly written to pass muster, but the actual argument of the court is not really that the state does not have the power to prohibit such speech.
This guy gets it.
You don’t have to go far to see how the wokanista crap plays out. This news article is active on the Daily Mail web site right now:
“Berkeley co-op bans WHITE PEOPLE from common areas to ‘avoid white violence and presence’ and all students trying to sign in are asked to declare their race”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11127383/UC-Berkelys-campus-op-called-Person-Color-Theme-House-bans-white-guests-common-areas.html
Holy shit
Merely exposing an employee to an unsolicited screed about race is allowing a hostile workplace and punishable by the state, but forcing an employee to listen to a screed about race is totes OK as long as you stick to an approved curriculum.
Just confirming that I understand this correctly.
Yes. You got it.
The only detail you left out is that the mandatory screed is only allowed when whitey is the object of hatred and ridicule. Say the exact same thing about any other race and the full force of the law will come down on you.
I would also say that ‘screed’ is unduly exclusive. A vaguely inferential or selectively interpreted circumstance. A Dominican Priest wearing robes the order has worn since before the founding of the country would suffice. An OK symbol would suffice. A raised, bladed hand by a white person is enough. A raised, closed fist by a black or “black” person in the background of riots across the country is just a coincidence.
Yes. As usual Reason thinks the blatherings of a district court judge are the equivalent of Moses carrying clay tablets down the mountain. When he or she agrees with their leftist viewpoint.
“Walker notes that laws against racist conduct at the workplace can be identified separately from speech. But IFA can only be understood through the lens of what is and is not said. It is entirely a regulation of speech, not conduct.”
And later:
“And even assuming the IFA serves a compelling government interest—like prohibiting discrimination—it is not narrowly tailored. In large part, this is because the [Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992] already prohibited much of what Defendants claim the IFA aims to prohibit. For example, a diversity and inclusion training could be so offensive, and so hostile to White employees, that it could create a hostile work environment. That is already illegal—as both parties acknowledge.”
So the judge spent 44 pages splitting hairs about whether the law validly prohibited discriminatory action or only discriminatory speech and reaches the conclusion that the law is redundant. Real groundbreaking shit here Scott. So the lawyers write a more artful version to suit this asshole and tell him to fuck off. I know everybody at Reason is an editor so maybe somebody could actually read this crap before it’s mercilessly dissected by the great unwashed commentariat. But DiSantis!
Here is another result of “white violence” in extemporaneous news. I don’t have a link for it.
“This comes just weeks after public schools and a teachers union in Minnesota agreed that white teachers in the education system would be laid off before those of color.
The deal was struck between Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers union after a two week strike spearheaded by union president Greta Callahan last spring.
It states that instead of teacher layoffs or relocations being decided based on seniority – as is typical – schools can ignore that protocol and dismiss senior staff members if otherwise a teacher of color would be laid off. “
In other words, blatant racial discrimination, which is supposed to be illegal.
Covered on the Volokh Conspiracy a couple days ago.
reason.com/volokh/2022/08/15/race-based-layoff-scheme-at-minneapolis-schools/
Mostly agree, except for: “the IFA is designed to exorcise these viewpoints out of the marketplace of ideas” — forbidding employers from _forcing_ an idea on you hardly removes it from the marketplace. Most ideas aren’t being actively forced on people by employers, yet somehow remain in the discourse.
We can debate whether these are good or bad ideas.
We *could*. Of course, we could also factually point out that Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker defends a workplace’s ability to declare some races as inherently racist, sexist, lazy, and inferior because of the race and culture of their ancestors.
How Commie-Education (commie-anything really) self-sustains and grows MORE communism. I miss the days when “commie” was a curse word to the general society who praised USA concepts like Individual Liberty and Justice for all. Course that all holy dismissal of the Constitution for “democracy” (i.e. [WE] mob rules!) has taught people that destroying the USA (per the U.S. Constitution) is just “democracy” instead of treason…
“The Individual Freedom Act (IFA) bans both schools and businesses from teaching or training students or employees a list of eight controversial ideas the law’s proponents associate with critical race theory. They include controversial concepts like the belief that people of a certain race are inherently racist or sexist (consciously or unconsciously), that people of a certain race are responsible for the racist behavior of their ancestors, or that certain values (like belief in excellence, hard work, or fairness) are racist in origin or used to oppress other races…”
“We can debate whether these are good or bad ideas.”
Actually, there is no rational debate to be had. Each of these MANDATORALLY preached propaganda points subjects employees to a hostile workplace in the case of private businesses, and to state endorsed racism when spewed in public schools. Those are both against the law.
Interesting… I wonder if the court decision would have been different if the Florida law had been more simply worded more like “An employer requirement of [critical race theory] training shall create a rebuttable presumption of workplace hostility on the basis of race for the purposes of [cite existing FL civil rights law here]”.
Yes. The celebrated plaintiffs here are defending a right to violate the Florida Civil Rights act of 1992 by creating a hostile work environment for white people while claiming that when it’s only white people it’s a 1A issue. Scott eats this shit up like a dog eats vomit. Looks like Florida needs to hire a lot more cops and start enforcing existing law on these racist retrogrades. Or maybe call in the national guard like they did in Alabama back in the day. Nah, that’ll never happen.
“We can debate whether these are good or bad ideas.”
In an article packed with stupid this is really is over the top.
I wonder whether DeSantis simply didn’t care whether the act was constitutional, regarding its passage as useful PR for his presidential run, regardless of constitutionality. I doubt too many potential DeSantis voters would object to such legislation.
DeSantis still gets the credit for being on the “right” side of the culture war his party has manufactured. What really matters is that we’re at each other’s throats over a nonexistent race war. The better to get elected while not having any actual policy ideas.
Republicans want you afraid of imaginary things because fearful people aren’t thinking people. Now that is biology.
FLORIDA MAN BAD!
Yes, that is the beginning and end of my analysis. Everyone’s as simple as you.
“ANALysis
“Culture Wars” are “manufactured” when conservatives resist progressive cultural aggression. Progs are always innocent.
But that’s your job as conservatives, to resit progressive change. I’d be worried if roughly half the country weren’t conservative at the moment the other half were wanting to change things. It would defy math, for one thing.
But that’s only part of what’s happening. It’s not progressives changing things for the radical, especially not with the government. See, conservatives are the ones actually passing laws to strip abortion rights away (not to mention deciding what is permissible private speech).
Progressives are just changing culture with the internet by talking to people. We’re not using the law to hurt people. You’re just feeling uncomfortable, and we’re the ones trying to conserve the status quo from those of you who want to use law to force us to stop.
“It’s not progressives changing things for the radical, especially not with the government.”
LOL… That’s an awfully rich lie there Tony. Unless you like to pretend ‘green energy’ isn’t part of the “progressive” mob or that female entitlement law (equal pay + subsidies for non-equal market value) isn’t part of the “progressive” mob or that commie-education mandates (i.e. indoctrination) isn’t part of any laws (never-mind that law of required attendance).
Gosh if it wasn’t meant to change any legal items (which it did hugely) what was all the fuss about to begin with? Go be gay, go sign up for a CRT class.. I don’t know about the rest of the conservatives but I really couldn’t care less. One thing confusing about this article and the DeSantis law is every-time ‘woke training’ is mentioned it has the world MANDATED after it. Is DeSantis just blocking MANDATED (Progressive dictation/indoctrination) or is his bill actually banning it (progressives favorite type of law)??? Now why would that be MANDATED Tony if “progressives” didn’t “change things”???
It’s humorous to watch you leftards PROJECT everything you’ve done onto that SINGLE subject of abortion constantly, compulsively and endlessly. What is this 1-abortion law = 1000-cultural indoctrination laws and judgements?
“Progressives are just changing culture with the internet by talking to people. We’re not using the law to hurt people.”
That completely reverses how progards have achieved almost all of their cultural gains; through court actions. Especially since they could never obtain such results through the normal democratic process.
It also is why they are setting their hair on fire over the “conservative” Supreme Court, because that institution was the source of so much of what is wrong with America’s culture, when it was in prog hands.
“so much of what is wrong with America’s culture”
I can’t wait to hear this. Does your analysis contain the word “uppity” by any chance?
Whoever could have guessed a left winger whose arguments prove weak would resort to accusations of racism. How could we ever have seen that coming?
So you tell me what terrible things the Supreme Court did to our culture when it was in “progressive hands.”
ENTIRELY IGNORED the U.S. Constitution….
The relevant question would be how leftists engage in culture wars, and the answer is by using government control to advance their social preferences, plus of course by turning any disagreement into claims of racism / sexism / homophobia. So that covers essentially every comment you’ve ever made.
Not going to answer the question? You know the difference between you and me. I’m not ashamed to say exactly what I believe. In fact, I find it puzzling why anyone would hold beliefs they’re not willing to defend.
Tony, are you so stupid that you don’t realize that we needed a CRA because the progressive Supreme Court was upholding ‘separate but equal’?
What really matters is that we’re at each other’s throats over a nonexistent race war.
It’s just bizarre when those who lead the culture war, like Tony, feign regret over it. Are they delusional enough to think people don’t recognize what they are? At least create a sockpuppet when you’re completely contradicting your true beliefs.
“DeSantis still gets the credit for being on the “right” side of the culture war his party has manufactured…”
Shitbag still gets credit for never arguing honestly; lies, strawmen, misdirection, you name it, shitbag has tried it. And failed.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
Getting tired of Federal Judges ruling on items that should be ruled on by State Judges. It’s time to dismantle 70% or more of the Federal Government and it’s overbearing bureaucracy. If a law within a state has no effect on people who are outside of the state then the federal government should have zero jurisdiction. I don’t expect the states to be the same, but rather to be incubators for a whole variety of ideas and approaches. What works will be emulated and what does not will not. Let California be California, and let Florida be Florida. We can vote with our feet.
You’re failing to distinguish between different approaches and ideas, and fundamental citizens’ rights. If Florida purported to reintroduce slavery and changed its laws permitting Florida citizens to own slaves if they’d been living in Florida up to then, or if they were illegal immigrants into Florida, no citizen outside Florida, should the Federal government not act?
“No citizen outside Florida would be affected”
^Well Said.
It’s really simple actually –
The federal ‘congress’ (i.e. legislative powers) job is specifically listed in the enumerated powers (not anything more).
Each State also has a Constitution approved by the State-Union government (federal) upon Statehood. The State’s also are required to abide by the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights protecting all U.S. citizens in *all* State’s by the 14th Amendment which ended State-Slavery.
Politicians honor + Patriotic voting + Constitutional Court ruling is suppose to ensure the USA’S existence against treason. When honor is gone the USA is gone with it. Every important office of government requires a sworn oath of office to the U.S. Constitution (it defines what the USA is).
Now that feds have stuck their stinky finger in it, SCOTUS here we come!
SCOTUS police-es government authority ONLY. It’s a very treasonous idea to pretend SCOTUS is any part of the ‘federal’ congress. It doesn’t make law against citizens like congress, it doesn’t enforce law against citizens like the executive — it protects people from tyrannical law ‘congress’ (upholders of the U.S. Constitution).
Beliefs that it is okay to throwing the two branches together is **cancelling** any enforcement of Individual Rights and/or Constitutions (VOIDS enforcement of the Constitution) empowering governments (congress) authority UN-limited.
Shit judge, shit author, shit Goebbels disciple publication.
There are no rules, only weapons.
The Nazis shared your views on gays and homosexuality.
If the state must allow employee mandatory CRT training which is just Marxist racism teaching black supremacy then it must also allow training in racist White Supremacy perhaps ending with handing out noose shaped key rings. No employee should be forced to endure such training as a condition of employment. Banning both is a public good.
That day a person became a ‘state’…..
Because You don’t own You; [WE] own you!
Is the State also going to work everyday for the employer?
Employer retardedness will end quickly so long as State-Gov can keep their noses out of it. Leftard garbage isn’t sustainable on the free-market; it has to have GUNS at it’s helm to exist.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1560690824492376064?t=jRotgmBUZS4-xgzuU9eJRQ&s=19
Wow: Parents have filed a lawsuit alleging that a public school in Florida “transitioned” their 12-year-old daughter while keeping it a secret from them. The daughter then attempted suicide in a school bathroom.
This is “gender-affirming” school policy.
[Link]
holy fucking shit
Sounds like somebody got his particular oxen gored by modern civilization.
Sure. Government often takes the view that murder is bad. Therefore, hiring a hit man is not necessarily protected speech.
“Sounds like somebody got his particular oxen gored by modern civilization…”
Seems a lefty pile of shit got called on bullshit.
As noted by the judge a hostile work force is already prohibited by the Florida CR Act, so the law applied to private businesses is both redundant and unclear enough that interpretation leads to fear of prosecution for teaching and discussions that even refer to the “concepts”, and thereby chilling to free speech. Anyone who is actually a libertarian understands that and that laws that restrict free speech violate the 1st Amendment in the most explicit and obvious manner. MAGA and Republican posters don’t care.
It doesn’t take MANDATES to protect free speech.
Of which the left is far more guilty of then the right.
As noted by the judge a hostile work force is already prohibited by the Florida CR Act
Which is irrelevant. Lynching is already illegal, are any left wingers claiming that therefore the new “lynching law” or hate crime laws generally are therefore not constitutional? I didn’t see any judges making this argument.
You people just make anything up.
I read much of the judges decision, which is thorough, detailed, and reasoned. This is typical DeSantis – a total autocrat intent on insinuating his will into all levels of government and even private businesses. He is the opposite of a libertarian as he wants the state involved in everything and you will be punished of you viola his will.
he wants the state involved in everything
The state is already involved in… state run education.
Do you see the stupid shit they have to pretend to believe for their objections to make sense?
The state is involved in lots of things, and the first amendment applies to them all.
The First Amendment does not mean an employer cannot direct the message of its employees to its customers. This is so obviously wrong its yet another example of how left wingers are so in thrall to their political agenda it prevents them from understanding anything.
But left wingers aren’t the ones writing laws telling corporations what they’re allowed to say.
Left wingers are arguing employers have no right to control how their employees deliver service to their customers. Imagine running a computer training business and the employee instead launches in a lecture on the desirability of racial purity. Do we say the employer can’t do anything because doing so would violate the employee’s free speech?
Absurd!
But left wingers aren’t the ones writing laws telling corporations what they’re allowed to say.
What an idiotic thing to say. Requiring certain disclosures (investments can lose money) and banning other claims (in advertising for example) is routinely government controlled with the full support of left wingers.
Do you guys even think about the claims you make for a single second? Just one?
“Left wingers are arguing employers have no right to control how their employees deliver service to their customers.”
No they aren’t.
“Requiring certain disclosures (investments can lose money) and banning other claims (in advertising for example)”
Speech that hurts or defrauds people has always been subject to regulation or sanction.
We’re talking about the government punishing businesses for not pushing the political worldview of the state. Try to keep up, and try criticizing Republicans when they do something you claim to dislike.
No they aren’t.
Of course they are. Over 85% of k-12 age kids in America attend public schools. The key takeaway is how left wingers simplt deny reality when it is inconvenient to their political wishes. Nothing they asset can ever be accepted as true, which is one reason their whining about Trump lying is so amusing. All Trump did was copy the left’s playbook.
Speech that hurts or defrauds people has always been subject to regulation or sanction.
It’s revealing left wingers claimed it was an outrage that free speech was restricted, yet in one single comment we discover they support restrictions on free speech. If they keep this up I’m going to suspect their accusations are not based on any principle at all.
We’re talking about the government punishing businesses for not pushing the political worldview of the state.
Wrong. We’re talking about your fantasy that teachers are some sort of philosopher kings whose opinions cannot be subjected to scrutiny, even by the people who pay them to teach our kids. But since you hate kids by your own assertion it makes sense you don’t care about their welfare.
You only think public schools are suddenly indoctrinating children because that’s what the flapping heads on FOX News told you to think.
Note how Tony pretends criticisms he cannot rebut are (supposedly) illegitimate simply because of where they come from rather than because they are either logically disprovable or driven by errors in fact. This is on top of the fact he invented the supposed delegitimizing fact (that the source is Fox News) to begin with.
In truth once you address the leftist worldview forthrightly their fallback positions reveal that essentially all of their assertions are similarly revealed as nothing more than wishful thinking.
The ruling covered in this article is not about schools dummy. It’s about dictating political viewpoints on private businesses and punishing them for speech. You’re not a libertarian.
Then, by this logic, it is neither the state’s nor Congress’s business if businesses train employees to agree with Nazi racial theory.
That’s correct unless a hostile work place can be charged under the Florida CR Act. If you don’t like it, don’t work there.
As we know, it is okay for CA, NY, NJ et al. to severly restrict the 2nd amendment rights of private citizens.
But when it’s the 1st and FL, democrats WILL defend corporations at all costs. Because they profit from it.
We need legislation in the spirit of hr 1808 to make clear that the 1st amendment isn’t absolute. That would help democrats too.
I appreciate you, comrade.
5.56 putting aside that until the Heller ruling in 2008 the courts did not rule that the 2nd amendment was without restrictions and in fact that still applies. How is allowing the state to dictate speech restrictions on private businesses not a blatant violation of the 1st amendment?
Apart from the fact that lefty gun confiscation schemes would already run into massive problems with the 4th amendment (items of common use, baby!!!), let alone the 2nd, concluding that a constitutional amendment that is very easy to read is somehow magically not what the text says can bite you in the back with the 1st. After all, state law often trumps federal. Look at CAs blatant violations of the 2nd amendment and many states ignoring federal marijuana legislation. Now we have some states not caring that much about the 1st amendment as well and there will be more.
Yes, I think your party opened a giant can of worms with their selective respect for the constitution.
How is hr 1808 not a blatant violation of the 2nd amendment?
And on this shit here:
“5.56 putting aside that until the Heller ruling in 2008 the courts did not rule that the 2nd amendment was without restrictions”
I think that, because racial equality and women’s voting rights were implemented a little late, they aren’t really valid and we would be better off ignoring them and acting like they aren’t a thing.
I know Heller makes you seethe. And it is delicious. I also believe that your account is dishonest and historically inaccurate but will have to do more reading to point out how. After all, the 2nd amendment was always under attack because tyrants hate it.
Don’t worry though, the Dems will soon claim a nice, juicy piece of the “1st amendment not absolute”-cake as well, and they will acquire the taste fast. They are already fighting free speech where they can in private and they will look HARD for ways to re-implement their little ministry of truth.
Or, to put it more simply:
HELLER WAS PROGRESS. Cope. Seethe. Continue to lose.
So are businesses and schools allowed to teach racists ideas as well?
You can’t restrict speech in the workplace? Can employees say whatever they want then?
Let’s be logically consistent.
Clearly, by this judge’s rationale, businesses can teach Nazi racial theory or Communist class theory as dogma.
Why not? This is America.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it’s what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
Fuck off and die, Asshole.
“You can’t restrict speech in the workplace? Can employees say whatever they want then? Let’s be logically consistent.”
EXACTLY… This is leftard PROJECTION 101….
Leftards are the very source of inviting speech law into business (harassed by speech, equality, etc, etc, etc). Now they cry (PROJECT) when it limits their MANDATED indoctrination on business. DeSantis would be wise to **repeal** all that leftard free-speech restrictions on businesses.
Woke training violates the free speech rights of employees, unless they are free to refuse the training or to comment freely.
It’s non-work related, so the company has no compelling business interest in forcing it on employees.
It’s compelling business interest is ‘woke’ laws on the books REQUIRING it.
I can’t post a link?
Yeah, boy only one per post.
When this bill passed, I thought the part dealing with private business was problematic. I teach American History in Florida, and have never worried that anyone was trying to ccensor the way I taught about slavery or civil rights and I don’t worry about it going forward.. I don’t know how Walker will rule on the education aspect of the law, but it is telling that he has not enjoined it and has allowed it to be enforced pending a trial on the merits. States do have the right to set educstion curriculum. That said, , Judge Walker is a true left wing whacko, which is why all of these lawsuits are filed in northern Florida. The references that he uses in this opinion are laughable, designed, I think, to play upon his image as a whacko. When he enjoined Florida’s voting rights act earlier this year, and placed the whole state under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the 11th Circuit lifted his stay of the law almost immediately, and noted his intemperate language.
“…That said, , Judge Walker is a true left wing whacko, which is why all of these lawsuits are filed in northern Florida…”
Didn’t he approve the Trump warrant?
This isn’t about speech but allowing the teaching of a Marxist-based political ideology in businesses and classrooms including lying about the curriculum. CRT also encourages racism too.
“This isn’t about speech, I just want the state to ban a particular viewpoint.”
“This isn’t about speech, I just want the state to MANDATE a particular viewpoint.”
Leftard Projection 101.
Walker, huh? North Florida. Interesting.
The problem with this bill banning workplace training is that it doesn’t go after the root cause. Companies hire woke corporate trainers because they help insulate them from frivolous anti-discrimination lawsuits. Of course companies are going to fight hard if the government passes a law preventing them from defending themselves from disgruntled employees weaponizing anti-discrimination laws.
A better, and more constitutional, fix is to either pass a law making these woke trainings inadmissible as evidence in a lawsuit, or just make frivolous anti-discrimination suits harder.
Or maybe there’s not a problem to fix. Maybe the governor should focus on the well-being of the citizens of Florida instead of running for president in the model of redneck Hitler.
You people are being led around like dogs. They’re finding every little annoyance, real or imagined, and promising you laws about them. And most “libertarians” here are spending all their time justifying why government has to force more people to do things. For stupid fucking phony irritants they’ve never actually personally experienced.
What’s next, the line is too long at Starbucks, so we execute every third person?
Right idea; Wrongly assumed….
It’s time to repeal all that leftard garbage (whistling at girls = harassment, calling someone a fag = hostility, etc, etc — good grief Tony the list is endless)……………………………….
It’s no secret the LEFT started this Gov-Guns are the speech police.
It’s funny how they scream foul if it isn’t their all holy ‘speech police’.
END the SPEECH POLICE ENTIRELY… REPEAL THE WOKISM LAWS.
So you’re mad because of the law that forbids you from calling someone a fag.
Are you on hard drugs, or were you born this way?
So you’re mad because of a law that forbids you from compulsively telling (?teaching?) someone they’re a white supremacist or a misogynist…
From ?science? to ?training/teaching? The left will throw on whatever sheep’s clothing of a deceitful word it takes to pass ‘wolf’ laws and grow their Nazi-Regime..
Where did you acquire the information that they’re teaching such things in schools?
Not only directly from this article. I’ve seen my kids bring home such garbage already (actually from years back) and I assure you it just keeps getting thicker every year.
So years back your kids brought home school material that accused them of being white supremacists and misogynists?
Being forced into a woke ideology is not free speech, it is tyranny. I have quit a few jobs for a lot less.
And what, the government forced you to go back to work?
This is the problem with you leftards.. You seem to think law is just a job you can quite or a ?good? suggestion. Never really coming to grips with the fact that the only ‘tool’ in Mr. Dictators toolbox is GUN-Threats. Leftard ?purposeful? ignorance is what makes leftards criminal and a dangerous threat to USA Liberty and Justice.
No ‘Joe’.. People can’t just quite the ‘woke’ speech-police laws you leftards got written.
You’re engaging a steaming pile of lefty shit who posts lies, and nothing but, except by accident. And repeats the lies a day later in the hopes that others are as stupid as s/he is and will have forgotten the ‘correction’.
Do not bother to engage Joe Asshole; insult him, as he deserves.
Eat shit and die, Asshole.
You all know that woke corporate rhetoric is phony and profit-driven anyway, right? If they really believed in it, they’d stop investing in Texas, Florida, and several countries overseas.
Our Lords & Masters really are determined to leave us no alternative to the guillotine, eh?