Florida is ‘No Sunshine State’ for LGBTQ+
Douglas Soule of the USA Today Network reports that Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody has conveyed, in a legal brief defending state book banning, that “the state maintains the books on school shelves represent protected government speech” and that “public school libraries are ‘a forum for government speech,’ not a ‘forum for free expression.’ ”
This dangerous blather is the latest crank constitutional argument seeking to limit free speech and does massive disservice to both the notion of constitutionality and what constitutes an “argument.”
It is not an argument so much as an assertion, without evidence, that the state can do whatever it likes in terms of forcing an ideological purist’s view of the world into the minds of helpless students - without regard as to its veracity, value, standards or any objective measure of its usefulness or interest to the students. Right now, in Florida, this ideology is a heavily skewed right-wing view – but if such nonsense is upheld, it could just as easily be operationalized by the loony left.
I am a supporter of the notion that people have the right to free speech and, further, that the value of considering certain private enterprises, such as corporations, as “fictitious people” far outweighs the dangers posed in their having rights as real people do. (Sorry, enemies of the Citizens United ruling, but corporation do, in fact, have a right to free speech.) The argument for both types of rights are enshrined in practice and tradition as well as law.
People and corporations in the private sector have opinions – individuals have ideas and present them to the world – that’s protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. They express themselves in all sorts of ways (art, the written word, and so on) as well as speech, and that, too, is protected as an individual right. But “The State” or “Government” in the United States, is not unitary. It cannot have a monolithic opinion, and as a result, it cannot express it. Not in libraries, nor anywhere else.
Authoritarian nations do control the books and materials used to educate their citizens, of course. They do this because control of the narrative contributes heavily to control of the people, there. But in the USA, our investment in freedoms supersedes almost everything else: freedom of thought, freedom of discussion, freedom to exchange ideas – and develop new ones through that interchange – has kept us at the forefront of a competitive world since 1789. And that’s what we should be teaching kids in our schools – and teaching them by example.
Here, government is not value-neutral, but is, rather value-diverse. We expect citizens to disagree – to battle it out – to sometimes compromise, but we hardly expect government, in the structural sense, to speak with one voice.
Individuals in government do have opinions, and express them in the public prints, over radio waves, on the internet, and in person. No one would argue that they shouldn’t. But they must never be allowed – collectively or individually – to use the schools as a mouthpiece for their particular take on the world by controlling what kids can read. We encourage debate; disagreement fuels our ideas, opposition frames our deliberations; and having books and films and art representative of all views is important in nurturing this. Our society thrives because of a diversity of opinions and world views, not in spite of it.
Government cannot have speech in the sense Moody is asserting. Government can pass laws and make regulations, but these are subject to review under the Constitution, a hurdle that Moody may be trying to dodge with this legal pretzel-logic.
To assert that the contents of libraries is the “speech” of government, and that this speech is not debatable, is to assert the central tenet of autocracy that the government can do whatever it pleases to restrict, guide, or ideologically control how, or about what, citizens think.
There’s right and wrong in all this, and this is wrong.
R. Bruce Anderson is the Dr. Sarah D. and L. Kirk McKay Jr. endowed chair in American history, government and civics and Miller distinguished professor of political science at Florida Southern College. He is also a columnist for The Ledger and political consultant and on-air commentator for WLKF Radio in Lakeland.
Zieglers’ sex scandal reeks of hypocrisy
I read with chagrin Frank Cerabino’s column regarding the hypocritical sexual behavior of one of the founders of the “Moms for Liberty” and her husband, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. It seems that while “Moms” demonizes and persecutes LGBTQ people, this founding member engages in lesbian sexual activities with her husband, who now been accused of raping the other woman. This accusation deserves to be taken seriously.
Personally, I take no issue with the Zieglers’ sexual proclivities, unless it includes rape or other sexual atrocities, because I am a firm believer in a person’s right to determine one’s own sexual preferences. What I do take issue with is the public hypocrisy of these so called defenders of “family values.” It appears to me that the Republican Party is marginalizing those they deem unworthy in their myopic view of what the definition is of “family.” Moms for Liberty is a contradiction in terms. They are not for liberty. They are for censorship. They aren’t for parental rights. They are for imposing their warped radical agenda on those of us who truly believe in liberty. I am hopeful that in the upcoming election patriotic Americans come to the forefront and defeat these neo-fascists at the ballot box.
Ray Lowe, West Palm Beach
No Labels amounts to no democracy
As we approach the 2024 election, it’s crucial to shed light on a concerning development that threatens the democratic process — the No Labels Party’s evolving strategy. Initially promoting a bipartisan ticket, No Labels has now revealed a plan to put a Republican at the top of its presidential bid, risking a second term
To the casual admirer, the Sunshine State has everything a modern socialite would want: sandy beaches, clean water, abundant sunshine and a diverse population. Yet upon closer inspection, all of those traits belie a reality that is decidedly hostile to the LGBTQ+ community. In just the past five years, Florida has passed some of the most regressive legislation against the LGBTQ+ community.
In March 2022, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation – commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill – which prohibits educators from making any reference to LGBTQ+ people at certain grade levels.
Earlier this year, DeSantis signed a bill that targeted drag performers and lambasted drag shows as creating a hostile and predatory environment for children. And DeSantis took this step not long after the Legislature passed SB 254, which would give the state the right to take transgender children away from their families and criminalize care for transgender youth.
If we take a step back from those excruciating details, what we are faced with is one of the most dystopian environments for LGBTQ+ people in the global West. Essentially, LGBTQ+ people have been told they cannot and should not exist in Florida.
Along with the current patchwork of anti-LGBTQ+ laws across the country, Florida has helped to construct a modern-day Jim Crow era – albeit a rainbowhued one – where LGBTQ+ people are essentially disqualified and barred from pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. for Donald Trump.
No Labels’ own polling suggests its candidate, regardless of party affiliation, cannot win and would act as a spoiler. The intention to nominate a moderate Republican indicates a troubling path to victory in battleground states. Furthermore, its plan to trigger a contingent election raises concerns about chaos and potential manipulation. In the wake of recent challenges to democracy, this strategy could lead to further divisiveness and undermine the electoral process.
It’s essential for our community to be aware of the risks associated with No Labels’ new direction. Engaging with this plan not only jeopardizes the goal of defeating Trump but also raises questions about the integrity of our democracy.
Cynthia Disanto, Port St. Lucie
Ceasefire needed to end Mideast conflict
After barely a week of a ceasefire that saw hostages released and humanitarian aid flow into Gaza, war and violence have returned unabated. It need not be this way. There was positive momentum building toward a permanent ceasefire, something everyone must agree is urgently needed. Ceasefire negotiations, aid deliveries and the release of hostages show the power of dialogue. If Israel and the Palestinians want peace, they need to talk to one another.
More war is not the answer. In truth, there is no military solution to this crisis. It’s critical that U.S Rep. Lois Frankel, Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, state Sen. Lori Berman and state Rep. Joe Casello call for a ceasefire to finally bring an end to the violence. Only once the shooting stops for good can we address the root causes of the conflict.
Lindsay Zukerberg, Delray Beach
If Florida, which is home to many LGBTQ+ communities, wants to treat LGBTQ+ people more equitably, here are steps that Floridians can take to turn the tide:
Manage your own biases: Examine your own belief system to deactivate any stereotypes you may be carrying about the LGBTQ+ community. The fact is LGBTQ+ culture and sensibilities extend far beyond Pride celebrations, sexuality and gender pronouns.
Be an “upstander”: An upstander is an ally who acts intentionally to support a minoritized community. If you are not LGBTQ+, you can still find ways to honor, celebrate and recognize the humanity of LGBTQ+ people. Here are some ways you can do this: Talk about LGBTQ+ issues.
Educate yourself about LGBTQ+ terminology, icons and historical achievements.
Find ways to uplift, nurture and protect LGBTQ+ youth from the torrent of anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice that has surfaced in recent years.
Act strategically to negate and refute microaggressions that stigmatize LGBTQ+ individuals and degrade the larger LGBTQ+ community.
Demand stronger legal protections: Talk to your local and state representatives and demand that they repeal, block and speak out against anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.
In addition, Florida should also pass, strengthen and expand existing laws that protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination in housing, jobs and public accommodations. The act of enacting LGBTQ+ civil rights legislation would ensure that LGBTQ+ people in Florida can live peaceably and use their unique talents freely to contribute to society.
By taking these steps, all Floridians can create a more equitable – and welcoming – environment.
Joel A. Davis Brown is an organizational development consultant, professor and author based in San Francisco and New York City.
hhhh