WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

602

Source (amgreatness.com)

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the law’s salary-for-speech provision violates the First Amendment, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The decision came in response to two lawsuits brought by professors, students, and a student group who claim the law is unconstitutional censorship and applies specifically to Florida’s public colleges and universities.

Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the majority:

Florida’s salary-for-speech rule is a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the State’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry — classrooms where students are trusted to puzzle through ideas that are good and bad, easy and hard, ideally getting ever closer to the truth.

Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, dissented, contending that Florida has interest in regulating state-sponsored instruction.

Lagoa wrote:

To be clear, the First Amendment protects all viewpoints in the public square, whether they are conventional or uncontroversial. But it does not compel all viewpoints to be worthy of state-sponsored endorsement.


The split ruling leaves open the opportunity for Florida to pursue a rehearing or appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Source](https://amgreatness.com/2026/07/10/federal-court-blocks-florida-ban-on-critical-race-theory-indoctrination-in-colleges/) > The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the law’s salary-for-speech provision violates the First Amendment, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). > The decision came in response to two lawsuits brought by professors, students, and a student group who claim the law is unconstitutional censorship and applies specifically to Florida’s public colleges and universities. > Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the majority: >> Florida’s salary-for-speech rule is a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the State’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry — classrooms where students are trusted to puzzle through ideas that are good and bad, easy and hard, ideally getting ever closer to the truth. > Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, dissented, contending that Florida has interest in regulating state-sponsored instruction. > Lagoa wrote: >> To be clear, the First Amendment protects all viewpoints in the public square, whether they are conventional or uncontroversial. But it does not compel all viewpoints to be worthy of state-sponsored endorsement. ----------------------------------------- > The split ruling leaves open the opportunity for Florida to pursue a rehearing or appeal to the Supreme Court.
[–] 2 pts

Would they apply the same ruling to people speaking out about jews and their crimes? I think not.