Talk about a false equivalency. My Lord. The law does not prohibit gay or transgender people from teaching children. It prohibits instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation. A more accurate comparison would be "supporting a law that forbids men from sexually abusing students." That may be redundant, but why the Hell not, let's pass that as well.
Good article. Thanks for posting. Here's something for the Republicans who don't "trust" what the lawyers in this thread are telling them: Professor Clay Calvert, who teaches First Amendment and media law at the University of Florida College of Law, concurred that this “implied threat” within the statute to comply or face the revocation of the RCID’s powers could constitute a violation of Disney’s free speech rights. Describing himself as a “libertarian-leaning” registered Republican, Calvert said it was ironic “how radically this issue has flipped over,” with the GOP-controlled Legislature going from enacting a special carve-out for Disney in a social media anti-censorship law, to now specifically targeting Disney for retaliation. . . . “Singling out a business in a way that detrimentally affects its free speech rights is always problematic,” said Calvert, and constitutes “textbook viewpoint discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” . . . The clear message with HB 3C, the professor continued, is that “if they had supported DeSantis’ view [on HB 1557], then Disney wouldn’t be facing any repercussions.” He highlighted the legal woes of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani when he sought to defund and evict the Brooklyn Museum of Art from a city-owned building because he objected to an exhibit that he called “sick” and anti-Catholic. A federal court ruled that Giuliani’s retaliatory actions were a violation of the museum’s free speech rights. ----------------- There's more legal analysis from another UF Law professor that follows the above passages on other property rights and the Equal Protection Clause.
Do you subscribe to this viewpoint? If you don't, I don't have to take this from you. You don't get to reject "viewpoint discrimination" as something prohibited under the First Amendment, then use that as a shield when it involves an issue unfavorable to you. That said, you're getting better at persuading me in citing Professor Calvert. I just don't necessarily think you buy everything he said. If you do, by all means correct me.
I am so excited about the proposed "political consequences" and "special privileges" exceptions to the First Amendment we have seen raised here. And, everyone is overlooking the takings clause here. The conservative SCOTUS and Circuits have been expanding the traditional interpretations of takings. What do you think the value of Disney's right to a self governing District is? Certainly more than the $1 billion bond debt.
Still waiting for you to answer: "What is the highest American legal authority that prohibits OSHA from exercising powers not delegated to it by Congress?" What's the matter, duchen? Stumped? It can't be. You're ten times smarter than me and a well-renowned legal expert. This can't be true.
You're confused about what I said, so you insinuate that I'm speaking nonsense? Maybe you just don't understand it, or you're upset about it so you're getting snarky with me. More than likely, it's the latter.
Nope. I understand what you said. And it’s devoid of logic or reason. So, yep, that’s the response you’re entitled to.
Dear lord. Are you still arguing that an issue of statutory interpretation is *really* a constitutional issue, despite that the Court never actually interprets the constitution? Man, you’re stubborn. I’ll give you that. So, to answer your question, it’s irrelevant to what the ISSUE is. The ISSUE is not whether there is a tangential relationship to the constitutional structure. The ISSUE is what the Court is confronted with to resolve the dispute. And here that is statutory.
That is not an answer as to whether you subscribe to this : So I'll ask you again... Is government discrimination based on viewpoints unconstitutional?
"The general principle that has emerged from this line of cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others." Members of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) Any other silly questions?
Of all the stupid things to ask, you're asking me, as a lawyer who practices a lot of First Amendment law, if I agree that viewpoint discrimination is (usually) unconstitutional? And you're doing it in a thread where I have repeatedly said that DeSantis and the Republicans are violating the First Amendment by retaliating against Disney for its political speech opposing DeSantis's favored policy (i.e., viewpoint)? In case you still haven't figured it out, the answer is yes. It's like asking if I root for the Gators football team.
