- November 25, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
That pesky First Amendment.
Citing free-speech concerns, federal judges this week delivered a one-two punch to Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-dominated Legislature by blocking two laws that were set to take effect Thursday, July 1.
The first blow came when U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction stopping a controversial law that, in part, seeks to prevent large social-media platforms from banning political candidates from their sites. DeSantis pushed lawmakers to pass the measure this spring.
“The legislation now at issue was an effort to rein in social-media providers deemed too large and too liberal. Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate government interest,” Hinkle wrote in a 31-page order.
Under the law, companies that remove political candidates from platforms could face fines of $250,000 a day for statewide candidates and $25,000 a day for other candidates. The law also would require companies to publish --- and apply consistently --- standards about issues such as banning users or blocking their content.
But Hinkle, calling the law “riddled with imprecision and ambiguity,” sided with online-industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which filed the legal challenge. The groups argued that the measure violates the First Amendment rights of private companies and would harm their ability to moderate content on platforms.
Lawyers for the state contended that the social-media platforms are engaging in censorship and violating users’ speech rights. But Hinkle, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote that the state’s “assertion is wholly at odds with accepted constitutional principles.”
After Hinkle released his decision Wednesday night, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor followed suit Thursday morning by blocking a new law that seeks to cap contributions to political committees backing ballot initiatives. Winsor said the law runs afoul of the First Amendment.
The law would impose a $3,000 limit on contributions to political committees collecting petition signatures to place proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and three political committees filed a lawsuit in May challenging the contribution cap.
Winsor, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, relied on previous court decisions in issuing a preliminary injunction.
“First, contributions to political committees that advocate for ballot initiatives are ‘beyond question a very significant form of political expression,’” Winsor wrote, partially quoting from legal precedent.
Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office contended in court documents last month that the new law would give voters “assurance” that funding for proposed constitutional amendments comes from numerous contributors rather than fewer, wealthier donors.
Winsor rejected the state’s argument, writing that “the state has no significant interest in limiting speech of political committees with fewer (but bigger) contributors.”
DeSantis united Republican and Democratic lawmakers this week in shared confusion when he unexpectedly vetoed two bills that never got “no” votes during the 2021 legislative session. One of the bills dealt with “civic literacy education,” while the other dealt with expunging juvenile arrest records.
“Our goal was to create, essentially, the Eagle Scouts of civics. To allow people to take what they learned in theory and put it into practice,” Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, said of the civic literacy measure (SB 146), which DeSantis vetoed Tuesday.
The bill, sponsored by Brandes, sought to instruct students in high-school government classes on how to participate in “society, government and the political system” by allowing them to participate in real-world “civic engagement” activities.
DeSantis issued a veto letter that said the bill “seeks to further so-called ‘action civics’ but does so in a way that risks promoting the preferred orthodoxy of two particular institutions.”
Brandes said the letter left him “deeply confused of whether the governor’s team actually understood what this bill really did.”
House sponsor Ben Diamond, D-St. Petersburg described the veto as an abrupt reversal by DeSantis. A news release from Diamond’s office said he was told several weeks ago by the governor’s staff that DeSantis intended to sign it.
DeSantis also vetoed a bipartisan bill Tuesday (SB 274) dealing with expungement of juvenile records. The veto riled supporters of the measure who had waited years to see it come to fruition.
In his veto letter, DeSantis expressed concerns that the “unfettered ability to expunge serious felonies, including sexual battery, from a juvenile’s record may have negative impacts on public safety.”
House Minority Co-leader Bobby DuBose, D-Fort Lauderdale, was befuddled by the veto.
“The governor’s reasoning behind the veto of this bill is confusing since the discretion to expunge records would fall on the law enforcement officer responding to the minor’s crime or the state attorney,” DuBose said in a prepared statement.
Sen. Keith Perry, a Gainesville Republican who sponsored the measure, said he intends to refile it for the 2022 legislative session “with (DeSantis’) concerns in place.”
The floodgates have opened for college athletes in Florida and across the country to make money based on their names, images and likenesses. And right off the bat, the first contracts started to be inked Thursday, as a state law allowing athletes to receive off-the-field compensation took effect.
Rep. Chip LaMarca, a Lighthouse Point Republican who was a sponsor of the Florida law, touted athletes being able to get paid. LaMarca was on hand Thursday for a media appearance where several Florida State University athletes announced the signing of their first agreements for compensation.
“There’s no guarantee that (college athletes) will be able to play professionally. And we want to make sure that while they are famous for who they are and what they’re doing, that they can make some money doing it,” LaMarca said.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Federal judges blocked new Florida laws that target large social-media companies and seek to limit contributions to political committees backing ballot initiatives.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK: “Whatever might be said of the largest providers’ monopolistic conduct, the internet provides a greater opportunity for individuals to publish their views --- and for candidates to communicate directly with voters --- than existed before the internet arrived.” - U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in his order blocking the social media law.
