Their political content of course being the operative phrase.
5 Likes
That’s not how 1A works. Among other things, the government can not choose to elevate some speech over others, punish any form of speech, or otherwise do anything that has a chilling effect on speech. Its interpretation by the courts has been very broad (as it should be*). This is unquestionably a 1A violation, assuming DeSantis did it for the reasons cited here. However, proving it would be extremely difficult, so I wouldn’t expect a case to be brought. The timing is certainly suspicious, but DeSantis could make up all sorts of plausible excuses for vetoing the bill.
.
*with the exception of Citizens United. That was a garbage decision that will go down in history as the beginning of the end of American democracy
11 Likes
(too repetitive to post)
Years ago, I read an article talking about how big sporting or other events that draw a large crowd, actually lead to a decrease in patronage of area businesses as the increased event traffic keeps others out of the area. I think it was probably a Dave Zirin article.
7 Likes
2 Likes
While he could make up all kinds of reasons, it sounds like he’s doing the reverse and explicitly saying it’s because of their statements.
The same was true of the Disney one. The governor and legislature could have been all coy and stated all kinds of plausible reasons. Instead, they explicitly stated, including during the legislative session, that it was because of the statements and as punishment.
These should be much easier to prove when the government is explicit that it’s using it’s power to punish.
11 Likes
Of course it is! Were you expecting any sort of internal consistency in their political posturing?
4 Likes
So…now they’re giving up ALL the sports balls?
6 Likes
A proposition for few days on Underage Sex Slave Island would have worked.
4 Likes
The government is levying a punishment against an organization because of something they said. It’s a definitional example of violating someone’s right to free speech. It’s not “cancel culture” when you use the power of the state to enact the consequences.
10 Likes
If the ACLU doesn’t have a main office in Florida yet, then they need one ASAP.
7 Likes
They’ve got to be so busy there right now, I can’t even imagine.
7 Likes
Yes. And it’s 100% legal.
How does withholding funding prevent them from publishing their political opinions?
Um, no it doesnt. As long as the Rays’ ability to publish their ideas without government interference, thats where the 1A stops. If the Rays were a protected class (race, religion, etc.), we might have something to talk about constitutionally; being “against murder” is not a protected class.
How does issuing you with a fine or putting you in jail prevent you from publishing your political opinions? (Seriously?)
7 Likes
They arent being fined. They arent being put in jail. So… why are asking this question. This is just silly. Yes, DeSantis is a Bad Man. No, DeSantis is not violating the Constitution. Bad people can do Bad things consitutionally.
What if DeSantis was instead withholding funding (again, this is not a “fine”) because he realized it had a Proud Boys/Oathkeepers/neo-Nazi connection: would that be “illegal” to you?
You’re thinking prior restraint. The government punishing groups or individuals for political speech is very much a violation of 1A.
8 Likes
They effectively are, though - money that otherwise would have gone to their organization is being withheld specifically because of their speech.
9 Likes
I’m talking what is legal. You are talking what is just/ethical/moral/humane/democratic.
Me too. You seem to be radically misunderstanding what “free speech” and intrusions into it mean. I don’t think we have a shared reality here as the basis for conversation.
7 Likes
I honestly wish your reality was reality.
