Florida is threatening to prosecute TV stations over an abortion rights ad. The FCC chief calls it ‘

1. The letter offers no protections or binding legal opinions.
2. The Department of Health does not handle the prosecutions for violating the abortion ban.
"Hey doctors, it's okay. Place your freedom in the hands of prosecutors. They probably won't try to put you in prison for a long time."

 

I know DeSantites will dismiss this, but in every sense of the word, this is extraordinary. It took extraordinary courage for this guy to step down. He worked for the State, at a low salary, to gain experience and grow his professional contacts. He has risked everything he worked so hard for by this resignation. He will find himself fighting to defend his honor and his livelihood for standing up against disgusting governmental over-step.

 

The commercials are blatantly deceptive. Screw those lying sax o shit.

 

This whole story seems like the sort of threat to free speech that Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and Tulsi Gabbard have been warning us about.

 

I know I’m missing something that is intended to be funny, but I have no idea …. And that just makes me sad.

 

You're actually better off not knowing. They're former liberals/Democrats who like to attack Democrats over purported free speech concerns - yet apparently have a blind spot when there are actual threats of prosecution coming from the right/Republicans.

 

The one's produced by the anti-choice crowd are far more inaccurate. Are you going to "Screw those lying sax o shit." too?

 

so Wilson has turned whistleblower and the complaint will be amended against the three that actually wrote the letter.

down the road, these three will also by open to judgements for violation of civil rights. no QI here...

I did not know that some stations quit airing the ad.

There’s New Evidence Against Ron DeSantis in Abortion Censorship Case

But Floridians Protecting Freedom is now considering the possibility of bringing individual capacity claims against Newman, Elliott, and Doty, according to sources close to the legal team. The organization remains focused on making sure it can speak freely about Amendment 4 before the election. Down the road, though, it may file an amended complaint. And while no final decisions have been made, that complaint could name Elliott, Newman, and Doty as defendants, seeking damages from all three men for an illegal deprivation of civil rights.

Emma Olson Sharkey, an attorney representing FPF, told me that one goal of the lawsuit is to deter other states from wielding censorship tactics against sponsors of a ballot measure. “What we’ve seen in the past is that when something appears to work in one state where conservatives control the government, which is the case in Florida, we see those actions spread,” she said. “We have a concern about making sure this doesn’t spread and making sure those who conducted this are held accountable.” The legal team’s next steps, while still under consideration, will be designed to further this deeper aim.

If Floridians Protecting Freedom names DeSantis’ advisers as defendants, all three men could be in serious trouble. Federal law allows plaintiffs to collect damages from state officials who violate their civil rights. Through a doctrine known as qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has limited liability to situations in which officials violated “clearly established” law. But it is hard to think of more clearly established law than the First Amendment principles flouted in this case. Just last term, in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that government officials can’t coerce third parties into suppressing an advocacy group’s speech. It is uncanny how closely Vullo tracks the facts of this case (though the case involved far subtler coercion).

“Vullo is directly on point,” Ben Stafford, another lawyer for FPF, told me. “Any official reading it would know darn well that a letter like the letter that was sent in our case was unconstitutional. Full stop.” The law here, in other words, is “clearly established” to an unusually specific degree. That means any future defendants will have serious trouble using qualified immunity to avoid liability.

In some ways, FPF has already suffered harm beyond repair. Some stations quickly stopped airing the Amendment 4 ad after receiving the state’s letter, suppressing vital speech about a matter of immense public concern. FPF will never get back the opportunities it has lost to educate the public about the amendment. Damages are meant to give a plaintiff the next best thing: compensation for irreparable wrongs that double as a deterrent against future misconduct. Win or lose in November, abortion rights advocates have a compelling reason to seek accountability from the officials who schemed to silence their speech.