First: strawman ; not cool
Second: was it punishment for protected speech? Then yes, it would be.
6 Likes
You also dont seem to know what a straw man is. If anything I am steel-man-ing the argument. I am taking the worst possible situation to project what the outcome would be even in that extreme situation. (Hint: the outcome is the same.)
As long as the political speech doesn’t escalate to hate speech, yes the law protects it.
If DeSantis had made an impassioned plea to the legislature not to pass the law funding the stupid spots facility, no problem. But the legislature passed the funding and he blocked the funding with his veto and stated straight out that his reason was to punish them for their speech. This isn’t a 1A fringe case; it’s smack in the center of the 1A and it’s very reason for being.
You’re choosing a very strange hill to (rhetorically) die on.
By choosing a group prone to violence, hate speech, and other illegal activity, you set that up as a straw man to tear down instead of sticking to the actual point of the discussion. I guess you could claim your fallacious argument is whataboutism, but it doesn’t strengthen your point as much as you think it does.
8 Likes
So very much this.
If he had said just about any plausible reason for the veto, it would have been totally find. Perhaps he just thought it was a poor use of funds, totally reasonable and acceptable.
However, he couldn’t help himself, he explicitly said the reason was to punish them. That the veto was explicitly because of what they said and not some other reason.
Beyond this specific action, it’s also a restriction on their future speech. They now need to worry that everything they say in the future could produce a government punishment of some form.
7 Likes
Looks like DeSantis is on a tear.
A holes gonna A hole.
6 Likes
That’s not what happened. So… why are you asking this question?
6 Likes
Courts don’t overturn vetoes in general
It’s just not something they review
2 Likes
I don’t know what the resolution is, since I agree overturning a veto would be really strange and unheard of. That doesn’t mean doing it the way it was done isn’t a violation.
If the health department says it’s going to fail you because the don’t like your speech, that doesn’t mean you can ignore health codes. But it would still be a violation.
4 Likes
Seriously, a cursory review of the actual case law on 1A speech rulings shows that the vast majority are actual questions of whether the government entity violated someone’s civil rights by punishing them for speech. Arrest, fines, firing, etc; punishment after the speech occurred. Only a minority of the rulings had to do with proactive prevention of speech.
12 Likes
I don’t think this is possible.
On their own, pro-business Republicans don’t have enough traction. The only way way they can maintain relevance is by allying heavily with elements that are either:
- Nativist
- Anti-cultural-shift grievance havers
- Protectionist of U.S. blue collar wages, especially in failing industries and/or against globalism
- Religious conservatives
Given their druthers, I think the pro-business Republicans would simply prefer to have an unregulated, untaxed, untariffed global market. But sometime pre-2016 constituents started to no longer buy that particular flavor of crap. Hence Trump got elected against pro-business Republican wishes. The entirety of his administration was pro-business trying to make the best of the inevitable and ride that tiger that just did not want to quit.
Without those supporters, pro-business Republicans have become increasingly irrelevant.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
