Posted on 04/28/2023 9:08:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
This week Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida made a trip to Israel to sign HB 269, a bill that makes it a felony with up to five years in jail for passing out “offensive” flyers or pamphlets. This move has been widely criticized by free speech advocates and legal experts as a gross violation of the First Amendment. The bill states that anyone distributing “any material for the purpose of intimidating or threatening the owner” could be convicted of a felony “hate crime.” While we often write about the “hate speech” rules on Big Tech platforms, this is far worse. This is the state of Florida violating the First Amendment of the United States.
The legislation came about after activists from a group called the Goyim Defense League made headlines for several years for their activism efforts. The Goyim Defense League’s activism takes the form of distributing flyers that contain “uncomfortable truths” about the individuals who control the mainstream media in the United States. These flyers have been handed out across multiple states, including Florida, and have been met with mixed reactions from the public.
Despite the controversy surrounding the flyers, it is worth noting that they contain no threats of violence or threatening language. Rather, they present what the Goyim Defense League sees as a reality about the individuals who control the mainstream media, and invite readers to consider a different perspective. While some might consider this information to be “offensive,” there is nothing inherently threatening or “intimidating” about the distribution of flyers with factual information on them. The flyers even have a statement on them noting that they are “distributed randomly without malicious intent.”
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. This means that individuals have the right to express their opinions, even if those opinions are controversial or unpopular. The government cannot censor or punish individuals for their speech, unless it poses an imminent danger or threat to others.
HB 269, however, seeks to criminalize speech that is deemed “intimidating” by the state. This is an extremely vague and subjective standard, and it could be used to silence a wide range of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. It is important to note that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that speech that some may find offensive is still protected under the First Amendment. This isn’t the first time Ron DeSantis has signed anti-First Amendment legislation while in Israel. Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 741, also known as the “Combating Public Disorder” bill, into law on May 14, 2019, in Jerusalem, Israel. The signing ceremony took place at the David Citadel Hotel, where DeSantis was joined by several prominent Jewish leaders and members of the Israeli government.
The bill aims to protect religious institutions and their members from discrimination and harassment. However, many have argued that it does much more than that, and that it represents a serious threat to free speech and civil liberties.
One of the main provisions of HB 741 is a requirement that all Florida public schools, colleges, and universities adopt a definition of anti-Semitism that includes certain forms of criticism of Israel. The definition in question is the one adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which defines anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” and includes examples such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “applying double standards to Israel.”
Critics of HB 741 argue that this definition is overly broad and could be used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies. They point out that the definition includes language that could be interpreted as equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, even though the two are not the same thing. They also argue that the definition is not necessary, as schools and universities already have policies in place to address discrimination and harassment.
Another provision of HB 741 requires law enforcement agencies to conduct training on identifying and responding to anti-Semitic incidents. Many have raised concerns that this provision could be used to target legitimate forms of protest and dissent. For example, if a group of pro-Palestinian activists were to stage a peaceful demonstration outside an Israeli consulate or embassy, could they be accused of engaging in an anti-Semitic incident?
Perhaps most controversially, HB 741 creates a private right of action for people who believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of their religion. This means that individuals who feel that they have been the victim of anti-Semitic discrimination can sue the alleged perpetrator for damages. This is highly likely to be used to stifle free speech and dissent. For example, a professor who expresses a controversial opinion about Israel could potentially be sued by a student who disagrees with them and feels that their religious beliefs have been discriminated against.
The fact that Governor DeSantis flew to a foreign country to sign both of these bills is absurd. Florida is a state in the United States, and its laws should be signed within the state’s borders. The reality that Gov. DeSantis chose to sign these bills in Israel, a foreign country, raises serious questions about his priorities and commitment to upholding the Constitution for the citizens of the United States and his state of Florida.
The implications of HB 269 and HB 741 are deeply troubling. They could be used to silence political dissent, punish those who criticize government officials, or suppress speech that challenges the status quo. In short, it is a direct attack on the First Amendment and the principles of free speech that are so essential to a healthy society.
We must be willing to engage in open dialogue with those who hold different views, and to stand up for our rights even when it is uncomfortable or unpopular to do so.
This means supporting organizations and individuals who are working to protect free speech, like Gab, and advocating for policies that promote openness and transparency in government. It also means being willing to speak out against efforts to silence dissent or suppress speech even when they come from our own political allies.
The defense of our fundamental rights is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of basic human dignity and freedom and it requires all of us to stand up and be counted. We must remain vigilant in the face of attempts to suppress speech and dissent, and be willing to push back against these efforts wherever they arise. Only by doing so can we ensure that America remains free for generations to come.
Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
This exact article was posted and removed earlier today. Great job posting absolute nonsense. You should be proud.
Destroy Free Speech?
Man the insane amount of fear and paranoia you people have against DeSantis is off the all nuts.
Get professional help.
Is DeSantis backing all digital currency as well?
"The Goyim Defense League’s activism takes the form of distributing flyers that contain “uncomfortable truths” about the individuals who control the mainstream media in the United States."
TRANSLATION: It's yet another white supremacist group that spreads anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
It’s not DeSantis we have to worry about. It’s dems weaponizing this law in the future
prohibiting a person from distributing onto 8 private property any material which contains a 9 credible threat to the owner, resident, or invitee of 10 such property;
Please note it does not stop people from voicing their opinion in the public square no matter what opinion they have. Rather it prevents them from threatening and harassing people on their private property.
RE: This exact article was posted and removed earlier today
So, it’s fake news?
Like what? What did they say?
Yes. If you actually READ THE BILL you’d see this account is false. But through your posts on this site, you have proven you care nothing of the truth.
Another exert:
2. b. If a person violates subparagraph 1. by intentionally 53 dumping litter onto private property for the purpose of 54 intimidating the owner, resident, or invitee of such property 55 and such litter contains a credible threat, the person commits a 56 felony of the third degree,
So again, no restriction on speaking one's mind. Only a restriction of dumping litter on somebody's property to threaten and intimidate them.
This is NOT banning free speech, it is banning targeted threats and harassments against victims in their own home.
I agree that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, but whether this move by deSantis is exactly that mistake, or something else, is not well illustrated by the opinion piece.
Usually moves against anti-Zionism dressed up as anti-Semitism are the work of progressives who support a Zionist viewpoint. It is unusual for conservatives to get involve in this bun fight which traditionally pits one sort of leftist against the other.
I hope they leave this fake news post up so people can see what kind of poster you are. You post lies, you don’t actually read the legislation about which you comment, and you seem to have no respect for private property. Which is weird for someone on this site. Maybe if you don’t like private property rights, you should leave. We tend to respect it here.
HB741 is a bill relating to passing school buses.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/741/BillText/e1/PDF
True.
Please note it does not stop people from voicing their opinion in the public square no matter what opinion they have. Rather it prevents them from threatening and harassing people on their private property.
We already have laws against threats and harassment. So what's the real reason for this bill?
To chill protected speech. A Soros type D.A. can use this bill to prosecute anyone passing out "offensive" flyers. So what if the person is eventually found not guilty after a stressful and expensive trial? The prosecution is the punishment.
If BLM, or a Democratic politician, were to leave a flyer on someone's private property, would they be prosecuted as a felony for "dumping litter"?
What if I say I felt "intimidated" by a BLM flyer left on my lawn? Would my subjective feeling be enough for felony charges? Or would the subjective feelings of some groups be accorded higher deference than that of others?
We already have laws against threats and harassment. As with all "hate crime" bills, this one sounds like an opportunity for much mischief.
The problem with Soros DAs is Soros DAs. Bragg didn’t even need a coherent legal theory. There is simply no way to keep them from abusing their power through trying to make laws immune from their abuse.
I’m sure this is just about as accurate as the reports calling legislation he signed “the Don’t Sa Gay bill.”
A home should be a safe place from mobs pretending to express free speech but really intending to frighten those they disagree with, including the families and neighbors. Public squares are for politics and protests.
Of course Soros DAs are a problem. But "hate crime" laws like this (which is what it really is) only makes lawfare easier, while achieving nothing worthwhile. Because as I said, laws against threats and harassment already exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.