“By limiting its restrictions to a list of ideas designated as offensive, the Act targets speech based on its content. And by barring only speech that endorses any of those ideas, it penalizes certain viewpoints — the greatest First Amendment sin,” Judge Britt C. Grant wrote in Monday’s opinion.
The “Stop Woke Act” was approved by the Republican-controlled Florida legislature in March 2022. The act was one of DeSantis’s top priorities, and before he dropped out as a possible candidate for president in 2024, it was a routine talking point on the campaign trail.
Offices for DeSantis and the Florida attorney general did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday night.
Also referred to as the “Individual Freedom Measure,” the “Stop Woke Act” prohibits trainings in workplaces, public schools, colleges and universities that could lead someone to feel guilty or ashamed about the historic actions of their race or sex. A violation of the act is an offense under state anti-discrimination laws, The Washington Post previously reported.
Monday’s ruling focused on the workplace-related provision of the law after Florida-based companies filed a lawsuit against the state. Honeyfund.com, an online wedding registry website in Clearwater, argued in court that the law would prevent it from holding an employee seminar about women’s advancement in business and institutional racism. Primo, a franchise of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream with stores in Clearwater and Tampa, argued that it would be prevented from teaching employees about “systemic racism, oppression and intersectionality,” The Post reported.
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.”
He and attorneys for the state argued in court that the measure is a ban on conduct — private companies’ requirement that employees attend such meetings — not speech, according to Monday’s opinion.
Grant, who was appointed by former president Donald Trump, disputed that claim.
“Florida’s attempts to repackage its Act as a regulation of conduct rather than speech do not work,” Grant wrote in the opinion. “ … Even if we presumed that the act served the interest of combating discrimination in some way, its breadth and scope would doom it. Banning speech on a wide variety of political topics is bad; banning speech on a wide variety of political viewpoints is worse.”
The group representing the companies suing the state called Monday’s ruling “a major victory for free speech in the workplace.”
“Speech codes have no place in American society, and elected officials have no business censoring the speech of business owners simply because they don’t agree with what’s being expressed,” Shalini Goel Agarwal, Protect Democracy counsel, said in a statement.
Tim Craig contributed to this report.
This article was originally published by a www.washingtonpost.com . Read the Original article here. .
