Judge Blocks Florida鈥檚 鈥淪top W.O.K.E.鈥� Censorship Bill From Taking Effect in Higher Education
ORLANDO, Fla. 鈥� In an important victory for educators鈥� and students鈥� rights to teach and learn free from censorship and discrimination, a federal judge issued an order that will immediately block Florida鈥檚 HB 7 鈥� also known as the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees (鈥淪top W.O.K.E. Act) 鈥� from being enforced in higher education contexts. The order granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors, a lawsuit filed by a multi-racial group of educators and a student in Florida colleges and universities challenging the discriminatory classroom censorship law that severely restricts Florida educators and students from learning and talking about issues related to race and gender.
The plaintiffs are represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Florida, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and pro bono counsel Ballard Spahr. Florida is one of over a dozen states across the country that have passed laws aimed at censoring discussions around race and gender in the classroom.
鈥淭his is a huge victory for everyone who values academic freedom and recognizes the value of inclusive education,鈥� said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭he First Amendment broadly protects our right to share information and ideas, and this includes educators鈥� and students鈥� right to learn, discuss, and debate systemic racism and sexism.鈥�
The lawsuit argues the Stop W.O.K.E. Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on instructors and students in higher education that are vague and discriminatory. The complaint also argues that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and will have a disparate impact on Black educators and students.
鈥淲e are gratified by the court鈥檚 decision to halt this discriminatory law from causing further harm to Florida higher education students and educators and to the state at large,鈥� said Morenike Fajana, assistant counsel with LDF. 鈥淏lack, Brown, and LGBTQ+ youth experience systemic discrimination in their daily lives, and they should not be banned from open conversations with professors who have dedicated their lives to examining these issues and often have similar experiences.鈥�
Rather than allow important issues around race and gender discrimination to be explored in public education, Florida lawmakers 鈥� working together with Gov. Ron DeSantis 鈥� have moved to impose their own viewpoints in state higher education through the Stop W.O.K.E. Act. The law prohibits educators from teaching or even expressing viewpoints around racism and sexism that are disfavored by Florida lawmakers, even where those viewpoints are widely accepted and considered foundational information in their academic disciplines. The law specifically targets and places vague restrictions on educators鈥� ability to teach and discuss concepts around the legacy of slavery in America, white privilege, and anti-racism.
鈥淭oday, the court sided with Florida educators鈥� and students鈥� right to teach and learn free from censorship or discrimination,鈥� said Jerry Edwards, staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果 of Florida. 鈥淭he ability to have honest and open discussions about our history and its impact on Black and Brown communities is crucial to our democracy. When we better understand our country鈥檚 past and failures, we allow ourselves the opportunity to pave a better future for all.鈥�
The court order found the Stop W.O.K.E. Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The order found, 鈥淭he law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints. Defendants argue that, under this Act, professors enjoy 鈥榓cademic freedom鈥� so long as they express only those viewpoints of which the State approves. This is positively dystopian. It should go without saying that 鈥榌i]f liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.鈥欌��
The preliminary injunction will immediately block the state from enforcing the law in institutions of higher education in Florida. And in separate litigation, Judge Mark Walker blocked the law from affecting Florida employers. However, K-12 schools are still being impacted by this classroom censorship law. The preliminary victory in the case could bolster similar challenges to classroom censorship efforts in other states.
鈥淚t鈥檚 an honor to work with the 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of Florida, and Legal Defense Fund on this matter, and in particular to represent these clients who agreed to take a public stance against injustice,鈥� said Jason Leckerman, litigation department chair at Ballard Spahr. 鈥淚t鈥檚 vitally important that education be free from censorship and discrimination. On a larger scale, much work remains to be done, but today, we can take a moment to be proud of what we鈥檝e come together to accomplish thus far.鈥�
The 老澳门开奖结果 challenged similar classroom censorship laws in Oklahoma, which was the first federal lawsuit challenging one of these bills, and in New Hampshire, and awaits rulings in both cases.
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Pernell v. Lamb
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Pernell v. Lamb
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.