Popular Information - A radical attack on the First Amendment
Four years ago this week, I started Popular Information. The reporting in this newsletter helped secure guaranteed sick leave for 170,000 restaurant workers, prompted dozens of major companies to cut off funding to Republicans who voted to overturn the election, and exposed Koch Industries' ongoing operations in Russia, ultimately pressuring the powerful corporation to exit. You can read more about the impact of Popular Information’s journalism over the last four years HERE. To preserve our independence, Popular Information relies exclusively on support from readers. But the truth is, only a small percentage of Popular Information's readers are paid subscribers. If a few more people choose to become paid subscribers, Popular Information can expose more lies, root out more corruption, and call out more hypocrites. So, if you can afford it, please support this work. There is a lot of discussion about the state of First Amendment rights and free speech in modern America. Much of this discussion is focused on "cancel culture" and allegations that "the left" is intolerant of divergent views. The New York Times summarized these concerns in a March editorial: "For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned." There, of course, is no "right" to speak publicly "without fear of being shamed or shunned." Shaming and shunning are important forms of free speech. Still, if people become so fearful of condemnation that they routinely self-censor even mildly controversial opinions, that is a problem. The country makes progress through a lively and unfettered public discourse. Receiving disproportionate criticism on social media or getting a comedy show canceled at a private venue, however, is beyond the purview of the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the government from making laws "abridging the freedom of speech." In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law prohibiting private companies from speaking to their employees about certain topics that don't align with DeSantis' political views. The new law, called the STOP Woke Act, went into effect on July 1, 2022. Somehow, this radical attack on the First Amendment has garnered much less attention among free speech advocates than the nebulous concept of "cancel culture." But it has received more notice from some Florida businesses subject to the new law, which have sued to block its implementation. How the STOP Woke Act worksThe STOP Woke Act amends Florida’s Civil Rights Act "to make it unlawful for Florida employers to require employees to undergo training or experience instruction that includes any of eight forbidden 'concepts' regarding race, sex, religion, or national origin." Prohibited topics include endorsing the concepts of white privilege or male privilege. Specifically, employers cannot conduct trainings that state an individual can be "privileged" or "oppressed" due to their "race, color, sex, or national origin." Further, trainings cannot suggest that anyone should "feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin." The law allows these concepts to be brought up if the employer remains neutral or opposes the concepts. It's only endorsing the concepts that are prohibited. In other words, an employer could tell employees that white privilege does not exist without violating the law. Only disagreeing with DeSantis is illegal. Employees that are subjected to training that include such content without their consent can "bring an administrative action or civil lawsuit against an employer." The Florida Attorney General is also permitted to bring lawsuits against employers that violate the law. Honeyfund v. DeSantisHoneyfund, an online wedding registry, and Primo Tampa, a local licensee of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, sued DeSantis and other state officials to block the law. This is the opening of their complaint:
The plaintiffs state that the STOP Woke Act "reads more like the policy of an authoritarian regime than a law passed in our American democracy" and "aims to forward the government’s preferred narrative of history and society and to render illegal speech that challenges that narrative." While the law effectively prohibits employers from saying that systemic racial and gender discrimination exist, the plaintiffs describe a mountain of evidence to the contrary:
While "people good faith may disagree about why such inequalities continue to exist, or what steps are most likely to address them, or even whether some solutions might entail other costs that counterbalance the benefits, there is no doubt that the First Amendment protects the right of all citizens to openly engage in that debate and to espouse their own views about these inequalities and the best way to tackle them." For better or worse, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights, just like people. The plaintiffs believe that "people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals face professional barriers stemming from unconscious and historical bias." They argue that "only by acknowledging such unconscious bias and privilege on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation can we begin the process of counteracting those forces." Using empirical evidence, the plaintiffs argue that addressing systemic discrimination head-on can improve profitability and employee recruitment. Fundamentally, the plaintiffs argue, the "First Amendment protects the rights of those on all sides of this significant public discourse to participate and to advocate for their preferred solutions. The government may not silence one side of the discourse by labeling it unlawful, as the State of Florida has attempted to do in the Stop WOKE Act." DeSantis' defenseLawyers for the state of Florida argue the provisions of the STOP Woke Act at issue do "not regulate speech at all, and they thus are not subject to First Amendment analysis." Rather, the defendants state, "the employment provisions regulate pure conduct: an employer’s non-expressive, commercial action of imposing 'a condition of employment' that requires its employees to attend certain instruction or training activities." The problem with this argument, of course, is that the STOP Woke Act does not ban all required instruction or training. Instead, it only bans certain kinds of required instruction or training based on the content of that instruction. So the limitation is on the business's speech, not conduct. Florida acknowledges the content of these trainings are speech and that businesses like Honeyfund and Primo Tampa have First Amendment rights. But they claim these rights aren't violated because the law permits them to stand in an empty room and say whatever they want. "[S]peech remains as free and unrestrained as it was before the passage of the Act." Florida argues. "[A]ll the Act says is that employers cannot engage in the action of forcing their employees to listen to it." Florida repeatedly compares the STOP Woke Act to a law requiring a business to take down a "Whites Only" signs. But if the STOP Woke Act had been in effect during the time when Whites Only signs were common, the law would have prohibited businesses from conducting mandatory trainings noting that these signs were evidence of systemic racism. What's nextOn June 30, Honeyfund and Primo Tampa filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that they are likely to succeed on the merits and the STOP Woke Act will irreparably harm their interests. If they are successful, the law would be enjoined while the litigation continues. Florida, of course, has opposed the motion. The court will consider the preliminary injunction issue in a hearing scheduled for August 8. |
Key phrases
Older messages
The first four years and the next four years of Popular Information
Tuesday, July 26, 2022
“Watershed moment in the restaurant industry.” As the pandemic began to take hold of the nation in early 2020, Popular Information reported that restaurant group Darden Restaurants, the parent company
Coachella's parent company is donating major cash to an anti-abortion political organization
Monday, July 25, 2022
This story is being published in partnership with Rolling Stone. Subscribe to get its biggest stories on music, culture, politics, and entertainment. June 24, the day the Supreme Court overturned Roe v
Congress pushes in its CHIPS
Thursday, July 21, 2022
Millions of children are living in poverty, the planet is warming, and inflation is reaching new heights. Now, a bipartisan coalition in Congress has come together — to push for $76 billion in
Sound off
Wednesday, July 20, 2022
In the last month, Popular Information exposed the hypocrisy of Match and other corporations that claimed to support abortion rights while makin…
State legislators passed abortion bans. These corporations sent checks.
Tuesday, July 19, 2022
The state of Texas did not wait for the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health to ban abortion. In May 2021, Texas enacted SB8, a ban on nearly all abortions. The legislation
You Might Also Like
☕ Deputized
Monday, April 29, 2024
Are AI agents the next big thing? April 29, 2024 Tech Brew PRESENTED BY EnergyX It's Monday. Everyone in the AI world is abuzz about agents, which are more than just mere chatbots—they're
The Great Unknown About Conflicts Of Interest In Arizona’s Abortion Ban
Monday, April 29, 2024
As state supreme courts consolidate power and corporate money, shoddy oversight allows justices to hide their financial conflicts of interest from the public. A powerful anti-abortion group wined and
Campus Arrests, Deadly Storms, and the Year's Best Space Photos
Monday, April 29, 2024
Facts, without motives.
When AI hallucinates poison
Monday, April 29, 2024
Plus: Have we reached peak emission? Examining food delivery app fees. And more. April 29, 2024 View in browser Welcome back! If you've recently tried to buy a book online and thrown up your hands
Why millions of Americans may lose internet access tomorrow
Monday, April 29, 2024
In 2024, reliable access to high-speed internet is no longer a luxury; it is a basic necessity. From job applications to managing personal finances and completing school work, internet access is an
Numlock News: April 29, 2024 • Manga, Challengers, Mauritius
Monday, April 29, 2024
By Walt Hickey Three's A Crowd Challengers, the Zendaya-starring Luca Guadagnino movie about three people who play literal and metaphorical tennis, made $15 million this past weekend, the second-
☕ Snoafers
Monday, April 29, 2024
A chips boom is coming to the US... April 29, 2024 View Online | Sign Up | Shop Morning Brew PRESENTED BY Timeline Nutrition Good morning. Alabama safety Jaylen Key was selected by the New York Jets as
UK's Investigatory Powers Bill to become law despite tech world opposition [Mon Apr 29 2024]
Monday, April 29, 2024
Hi The Register Subscriber | Log in The Register {* Daily Headlines *} 29 April 2024 secret agent eavesdrops using headphones plugged into an audio centre mounted with tape reels (illustration)
'Stop apologizing and do something, Portugal'
Monday, April 29, 2024
what happened last week in Asia, Africa and the Americas Hey, this is Sham, your very own news curator. I have a quick survey prepared, so you can tell me in my face what you like and don't like
QAnon Was Born Out of the Sex Ad Moral Panic That Took Down Backpage.com
Sunday, April 28, 2024
For years, the political establishment opportunistically railed against sex trafficking. Then came Pizzagate. Most Read QAnon Was Born Out of the Sex Ad Moral Panic That Took Down Backpage.com Trevor