Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/09/2026 5:59:36 AM PDT by Red Badger
An appeals court on Tuesday ruled that part of Florida’s law restricting how race and gender are taught in classrooms, specifically provisions restricting how those topics are taught in colleges, violates free speech rights.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit determined part of the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act, or Stop WOKE Act, signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in 2022 is unlawful.
The law was designed to restrict public universities, K-12 schools and private workplaces from promoting certain concepts related to racism, gender and systemic privilege. This week’s ruling only dealt with how the law affects the state’s public colleges and universities.
“Florida’s salary-for-speech rule is a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the State’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry—classrooms where students are trusted to puzzle through ideas that are good and bad, easy and hard, ideally getting ever closer to the truth,” Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the majority.
“This new rule also runs headlong into the Supreme Court’s repeated, if imprecise, endorsements of academic freedom. If the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it,” Grant added.
Judge Charles R. Wilson, a Clinton appointee, sided with the majority ruling, while Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, was the lone dissenter.
“The majority’s rule, meant to avoid what it believes is the State’s improper viewpoint discrimination, nonetheless endorses its own form of viewpoint discrimination,” Lagoa wrote in her dissent.
“Of course, some amount of viewpoint discrimination is necessary to ensure the effective operation of any academic institution,” Lagoa added, arguing that the state and the governing administration have the authority to set the limits on curriculum and speech inside the classroom.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) praised Lagoa after the opinions were released, writing that she “may be the best jurist in our country” in a post on the social platform X.
Meanwhile, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) lauded the appeals court ruling as a crucial victory for academic freedom following its 2022 lawsuit that sparked a legal challenge to the Stop WOKE Act.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Florida and Legal Defense Fund were also involved in the legal challenges leading to Tuesday’s ruling.
“Today’s important decision means that college remains a place where professors and students are allowed to debate controversial topics — even if politicians disagree with them,” FIRE senior attorney Greg H. Greubel said in a statement.
“Today’s ruling makes clear something we’ve known for a long time: Governments cannot censor their way to freedom,” he added.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
the state does not have to fund free speech if disagrees with.
So yes, the colleges have free speech, but they have no right to state money if they exercise that free speech.
The state will win this eventually.
Has either of these two black robed tyrants ever imposed a gag order during a trial?
EC
This law doesn’t restrict anybody’s ‘free speech’. It restricts the GOVERNMENT.
That’s why they don’t like it.................
Institutions are not obligated to tell the truth. The “misinformation” narrative of the Democrats was just projection. Misinformation was any fact that went against the narrative.
As the stupid lady on the Supreme Court recently said in a First Amendment case — “I don’t like this. It seems to hamstring the government.”
It will be overturned, if you take state money that state decides what you can use that money on. It is that basic.
Now if it is a private education, they can teach whatever and I agree the state cannot prescribe how or even what beyond a basic minimum requirement to receive certification.
Just more progressive judges being petty tyrants.
The lead designer of that curriculum, Bill Allen, is going to be pissed (know him well), as he should be. This is a Oxford educated scholar of Montesquieu and Washington. He can translate Thucydides on the fly. He was born a poor black kid from Florida. He's a hard-core conservative.
Teachers are under contract to deliver the instruction as designated by their employers. They can do all the babbling they want, outside the classroom. This is not a matter of "free speech"; it's a matter of psychological conditioning.
Somebody should inform her that the Constitution’s sole purpose is to restrict the government..............
These so-called judges have it exactly backwards.
It does not restrict anybody’s ‘free speech.’
It restricts the government, and that is what they have their pantifas in a wad about......................
This is education, not “speech.” This has to do with institutions and the conduct of their employees. Indoctrination is not a First Amendment right.
Two judges without the knowledge base of a middle school civics class that graduated law school and wearing robes. Embarrassing.
You nailed it!
So the state is not allowed to create education plans for state schools? Is the state allowed to say how math is taught in schools? What about English or science? Or can teachers teach whatever they want about science? What if a teacher decides to start teaching that the Earth is 6000 years old and that there are no dinosaurs and that Adam and Eve were the first people? If the school says the teacher can’t teach that, would it violate free speech rights?
Wait so I can demand they teach me a class on how great white people are? If they refuse I can sue?
The lawsuit was to restrict a government power to control what teachers teach in the classroom. The exercise of that power is legitimate, especially by a State and the people who elected them to run the schools, per the 10th. That means the Federill grub-a-mint's courts should stay out of it.
I guess if you can't argue the facts, change the question. This has nothing to do with students inquiring and everything to do with professors' instruction which is an exercise of authority.
“the state does not have to fund free speech if disagrees with. So yes, the colleges have free speech, but they have no right to state money if they exercise that free speech. The state will win this eventually.”
Or if the state loses, it can simply stop funding public colleges and universities ... their choice ...
The state certainly (and by “State” I mean government not just state government) certainly can’t withhold monies based on how an institution that receives that money decides to exercise its free speech rights. So Florida will not eventually win this. Especially when it regards a university where a free exchange of ideas (even controversial ones) should be a major part of higher education. Universities don’t have to hire professors who are more interested in indoctrinating students. Schools also need to be more on point in defending the free speech rights of students who challenge “woke” ideology.
Elementary and high school curriculum requirements are set by the state and there is no law that compels those requirements to include “woke” ideology. So if a teacher decided to make that ideology part of his teaching he would be subject to discipline. But the state could not refuse to fund the school if that teacher discussed such ideology outside of official classroom lessons.
Not the same thing at all.
You are, wrong, wrong, wrong.
“It will be overturned, if you take state money that state decides what you can use that money on. It is that basic.”
If your free speech demands on obedience to government mandate then that speech is clearly being infringed.
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.