Wrote Judge Britt C. Grant, quoted in "Appeals court blocks Fla. ‘Stop Woke Act,’ says it’s a ‘First Amendment sin’/A three-judge panel upheld a previous ruling that said the state law violates private companies’ right to freedom of speech and expression" (WaPo).
DeSantis had framed the “Stop Woke Act” as a tool for employees to “stand up against discrimination.” “No one should be instructed to feel as if they are not equal or shamed because of their race,” he said in a statement in 2022. “In Florida, we will not let the far-left woke agenda take over our schools and workplaces.”
পোস্টগুলি
৪৫টি মন্তব্য:
Diversity (i.e. color judgment, class bigotry). Woke ideology normalizes racism, sexism... genderism, political congruence, equivocation and indoctrination, etc.
"the state law violates private companies’ right to freedom of speech and expression"
Hey, this is fun. Progs will cheer, no doubt. But I thought the prog line was that companies should not be treated like persons, but now it's all good? And didn't antidiscrimination law trump speech protection until the day before yesterday, or is that no longer the prog line?
I don’t know which is worse, a law to rein in woke restrictions by adding opposite restrictions or a finding that it is unconstitutional and a “sin” against the first amendment. Our elites suck all around.
A better political tactic is a clean state civil rights law that makes it easier for "white" people to sue corporations for reverse discrimination. That would level the playing field and be much harder to attack legally. As it stands today, corporations don't fear such lawsuits, and thus are quite free to fly their Woke Flags.
No one should be instructed to feel as if they are not equal or shamed because of their race…
DEI is today's version of Jim Crow laws that discriminate strictly on the basis of race and sex. We're moving backwards as a nation.
I’m gonna need clearer rules about when racial preference is protected expression and when it’s racial discrimination not protected by Ad1…
…and it is obtuse in the post headline- how is the private company right to badger white people appropriately applicable to public institutions like schools?
makes no sense because social media platforms say they are not publishers and therefore immune from defamation liability. in fact a social media platform is more like a public square a la a "mall" which is not allowed to discriminate against people's speech
Sparsely worded and succinct. Does it get any better? Florida is blessed State.
We seek comfort in the philosophy of Sonny and Cher
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La-de-da-de-de, la-de-da-de-da
Oho, so now corporations ARE people with free-speech rights, according to the left.
Mitt Romney wants a word with you. So does John McCain.
“Even if we presumed that the Act served the interest of combating discrimination in some way, its breadth and scope would doom it."
The government can enforce a ban on overt racist speech in the workplace, yes, or is it just hiring? (Or is the remedy for the worker to seek civil redress?)
I guess the answer is to wage civil lawfare on this type of racism, if the state can't do it. Follow the Left's lead.
In other words, "O'Brien" DeSantis is deploying Doublespeak, as usual. In his telling, discussing our nation's history of slavery, racial discrimination, oppression, exclusion, mistreatment (not just of slaves but of many immigrants), terrorism, including lynchings, etc., and how it has warped law and (US) cultural behavior throughout our history we are “...instructing (people) to feel as if they are not equal or (to be ashamed) because of their race....” Oy vey!
He is, always has been, and always will be a complete tool.
can the bill/Act be cured by wording such as
The enumeration in the Act, of certain ideas, shall not be construed to target deny or disparage others disdained by the people.
As a governor, DeSantis should do a Hochul and ignore the court. (I know, I know Colorado will obey the SCOTUS decision, but only because they have other legal arrows in their quiver.)
Ah, approved racism. Wonderful.
The state should create a state-funded commision that will allow white people who feel they are the targets of racism to sue the state/companies.
Meanwhile, the Department of Veteran Affairs just banned the "Victory Kiss" photo from all of it's facilities and publications.
It's not hypocrisy, it's hierarchy.
Albinophobia, grooming, gender ideology, Pro-Choice ethical religion, Green myths, trans/social advocacy, trans/civil activism, etc.
What remedy is available? Civil suits? Class action?
Two of the three are Trump nominees.
Judge Britt C. Grant looks exactly like Titania McGrath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britt_Grant
It is a "private" company and as an employee you are voluntarily there.
- If you are a POC and the company held a mandatory meeting that included statements that POC are by nature racist, is that still "free speech"?
- Would it be OK if the company meeting were NOT mandatory?
- Would it be OK if the meeting said it was whites that are by nature racists instead of POC? If so is that because POC is a protected class and "whites" are not?
Asking for a friend...
But these judges wouldn't have any problem if institutions claim/teach as part of their core principles, that blacks and other minorities are inherently evil or suspect purely because of their race.
Or that white people can't be racist.
A Trump judge, by the way.
As I said at the time, the best way to combat this stuff is the approach taken in the Trump administration Executive Order, which is to utilizing hostile environment theory under existing law.
So, the schools are free to teach Wokism, Naziism, Deziism, Maoism, Marxism, Fascism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Genderism, and other religions/ideologies. It's a brave new/old/ancient forward-looking world.
lol. Now Democrats care about first amendment rights. Sure. Pull the other one, it has bells on.
Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-justice-minister-defends-house-arrest-power-for-people-feared-to/
restrictions to a list of ideas designated as offensive, the Act targets speech based on its content.
Analog hate, digital hate, hate speech, pedophilia, DEI, Respect For Marriage Act, social progress, climate progress, nativephobia, indigenousphobia, colorphobia, the baby-fetus distinction, ... where will it end?
I like being offensive. Don't outlaw it.
The VA caved:
""A memo was sent out that should not have been, and it has been rescinded," a VA official told the Daily Caller."
Amazing what knots people tie themselves into trying to legislate and adjudicate thoughts, instead of presenting winning arguments that some thoughts are better than others.
"No one should be instructed to feel as if they are not equal or shamed because of their race…"
Right! You're woke, my brutha!
AI warned everyone in 1997 that this would be the only obvious logical outcome of hate crime laws, state and federal, as they were written, but ten times moreso as they were trained to prosecutors and police (you know, prcticing law). Academic theory, academic silence, and legislative intent were mere speed bumps lined with less important and unenshrined victims' bodies.
To preserve your coffee clatches, yearly raises, and massive retirement and health benefits, you academic cowards smothered free spech like a three-hundred pound mama rolling over on her preemie baby. Now own it.
You did nothing. Don't dare whine now. You knew. You were just too cowardly to fight the fight then. Mild discomfort in the faculty lounge. I could grab a grenade and still have enough fingers left to could how many people had the cohones to fight the fight back then, when it actually mattered.
Piling on now as if it matters is like faking an orgasm.
sorry for the typos -- bad eyes, tiny screen
Two of the three are Trump nominees
Diversity of individuals, minority of one. #WakeFromWoke
Good for DeSantis for pushing this. Trump never would have even had the balls to try. Trump is a coward. And once again Trump's judicial choices vote in favor of the leftists. I am sick and tired of stupid Trump's appointments and nominees. Too many of his appointments end up siding with the leftists and communists. Why? Is Trump that stupid? I think so. Or does he appoint them knowing how they will likely vote? That is my real fear. Most of the people he appoints are enemies of America. But most commentators here think that he is smart in all of the people he has appointed. How stupid is that? If Trump is elected again, and I will vote for him if he is the nominee against Biden, I hope that stupid senile imbecile fucking Trump has learned a lesson. But I won't hold my beer.
Like the Suspension of paying rent, and canceling student debt, he just needs to rename it and keep going.
I don't see how it's a first amendment violation to tell school employees to stick to a pre-laid out curriculum of basic subjects. They're not stopping the teachers from saying whatever they want in public. The teachers are there to educate the children in English, math and other basic subjects. The teachers are not there to socially indoctrinate the children.
If the courts are going to rule that a public classroom of small children is a fully-open first amendment zone. And the teachers can say whatever they want, regardless of age restriction...that is a great reason not to send your children to public schools.
I just saw that I misread the WaPo headline. My previous comment is officially retracted. (Too much caffeine this morning.)
So, if a company required its employees to listen to speakers telling them (and they must agree) that blacks are evil and the cause of our country's ills and inferior to whites it would not create a hostile work environment that the state could bar? That doesn't sound right to me.
"The teachers are not there to socially indoctrinate the children."
All schools are institutions of social indoctrination. All teachers are instruments of indoctrination. The practice of teaching is indoctrination. Deciding what to teach and how to teach is part of the indoctrination. The arguments arise from the dispute in the culture at any given time what is to be taught and how. The phrase "indoctrination" covers a lot of ground. It can permit only a narrow, tightly curated course of study that dictates only that orthodox information that is deemed acceptable by the powers and accepted social ideas that prevail, or it can be broad and open to varying degrees, allowing an array of subjects and ideas and points of view that may conflict with each other but that provide the opportunity for clashing ideas to be discussed and debated, the obverse of a narrow orthodoxy.
"AI warned everyone in 1997 that this would be the only obvious logical outcome of hate crime laws, state and federal, as they were written, but ten times moreso as they were trained to prosecutors and police (you know, prcticing law)."
I have always abhorred "hate speech" and "hate crimes" laws and regulations and rejected them as unConstitutional. The first journalist who I remember really writing on this topic, way back in the late 80s or early 90s, and who also warned against it as an impingement on our freedoms, was the great leftist writer (and jazz music producer and critic) Nat Hentoff.
DeSantis Act didn't get laughs.
Robert Cook said...
"No one should be instructed to feel as if they are not equal or shamed because of their race…"
Right! You're woke, my brutha!
************
Now tackle what Real American said...
"So, if a company required its employees to listen to speakers telling them (and they must agree) that blacks are evil and the cause of our country's ills and inferior to whites it would not create a hostile work environment that the state could bar? That doesn't sound right to me."
C'mon, compare and explain away the difference.
Robert Cook said...
"No one should be instructed to feel as if they are not equal or shamed because of their race…"
Right! You're woke, my brutha!
************
Now tackle what Real American said...
"So, if a company required its employees to listen to speakers telling them (and they must agree) that blacks are evil and the cause of our country's ills and inferior to whites it would not create a hostile work environment that the state could bar? That doesn't sound right to me."
C'mon, explain away the difference.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন