In a recent ruling, a federal appeals court struck down a portion of Florida’s Individual Freedom Act, signed into law by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, that aimed to block “woke” ideologies in the workplace and schools. The law, known as the “Stop the Wrongs to our Kids and Employees Act” or “Stop WOKE Act,” prohibited businesses from teaching diversity programs and lessons. However, the court deemed this provision to be unlawful and a violation of the First Amendment.
The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit argued that the law, which sought to ban employers from holding mandatory meetings endorsing viewpoints the state found offensive, drew distinctions based on viewpoint, which is a violation of the First Amendment. Judge Britt C. Grant, speaking on behalf of the panel, stated, “This law, as Florida concedes, draws its distinctions based on viewpoint – the most pernicious of dividing lines under the First Amendment.”
The court’s decision was met with disagreement from Governor DeSantis, who expressed frustration with the opinion. His office released a statement saying, “We disagree with the Court’s opinion that employers can require employees to be taught—as a condition of employment—that one race is morally superior to another race. The First Amendment protects no such thing, and the State of Florida should have every right to protect Floridians from racially hostile workplaces. We are reviewing all options on appeal going forward.”
The law itself aimed to prevent businesses and schools from promoting certain beliefs about race, sex, and other “diversity, equity, and inclusion” issues. It labeled certain viewpoints on these issues as “hostile speech” and argued that businesses or schools requiring employees or students to learn these viewpoints amounted to “invidious discrimination.” The court, however, found that the law targeted speech based on its content and penalized certain viewpoints, which goes against the principles of the First Amendment.
Plaintiffs in the case, including businesses Honeyfund.com, Primo Tampa (a Ben & Jerry’s franchisee), and Collective Concepts, argued that the law’s mandatory-meeting provision violated their rights to free speech and criticized the law for being vague. They celebrated the court’s ruling as a victory for free speech and the ability of businesses to express themselves without government interference.
The ruling has sparked debates about the limits of free speech and the government’s role in regulating workplace discussions and education programs. Supporters of the law argue that it was necessary to combat discrimination, while opponents view it as an infringement on free expression and an attempt to control speech.
As the legal battle continues, the decision of the federal appeals court will have significant implications for the future of similar laws and policies aimed at restricting certain viewpoints in the workplace and educational settings.
