Protecting Free Speech and the Right to Learn in Florida
In classrooms and educational spaces across our country, a coordinated attack on our students’ right to learn is underway. Perhaps nowhere are those attacks more pronounced than in Florida, where state officials have led a coordinated effort to restrict free speech in classrooms under the guise of protecting children.
Last July, the “,” colloquially known as the Stop WOKE (Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees) Act, went into effect. The law limits the ways concepts related to systemic racism and sex discrimination can be discussed in teaching or conducting training in workplaces or schools. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against HB 7 in August 2022, resulting in an injunction against it.
Here, an educator in Florida’s higher education system and a young advocate discuss their experiences working to fight against classroom censorship in their state.
These interviews have been edited and condensed for clarity.
Dr. Dana Thompson Dorsey, Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of South Florida in Tampa
Credit: OBERLAND
“I am currently teaching critical race studies, as well as education law at USF. I really focus on race and racism, and issues that affect students and teachers, how it affects people who live in poverty, LGBTQ+ people issues around religion, all of those who would be deemed disenfranchised or marginalized. When HB 7 was signed into law, it was natural for me to want to join the ACLU’s lawsuit as a professor who would be directly affected by HB 7, also known as the Stop WOKE Act.
“That particular law basically says that my students cannot learn anything that talks about one race being better than another race or or one sex being better than another sex, or that the United States is inherently racist or sexist. My students can't feel uncomfortable if I'm teaching anything that says that their ancestors may have been racist or sexist. What HB 7 is saying distorts history, by saying what and cannot be taught.
“I come from a family of civil rights activists. My mom, being the oldest of five coming up in the ‘30s and ‘40s and growing up during the time of Jim Crow and civil rights in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — she was always fighting for her rights, whether in her job or in school. So I think it was just innately part of me to always do what's right, always fight for the underdog, always trying to fight for the right side of history.
“If my mom was sitting with me right now, she would say, ‘I've been here before, and I can't believe that we’re having this conversation right now.’ She wouldn’t believe that we’re talking about … the possibility of taking students’ rights away when it comes to what they can learn in higher education.
“We really did not learn history if we’re actually voting to have laws like this. And she would tell me, ‘Fight, fight, fight as hard as you can and don’t stop because I didn’t raise you to just sit still and do nothing.’”
Johana Dauphin, Student and Activist
Credit: OBERLAND
“I took HB 7 very personally because of my experience in Florida's K through 12 public schools. Working with the ACLU on this case inspired me to continue to mobilize students.
Johana Dauphin on her way to class.
Credit: OBERLAND
“My primary motivation to fight against the Stop Woke Act [is that] people are mostly raised in homogenous communities and are around people who are like them. And school might be the only place where they’re exposed to another perspective. So if their parents are prejudiced, they’re probably going to harbor the same prejudices that their parents have.
“So if they come to school and there can be freedom of thought and diversity of thought and different perspectives, that might be the one opportunity that they have to unlearn those prejudices. I have a really good friend who had some prejudices and I watched them change — I watched that person change right before my eyes over the course of a year.
“I think that school should be the place where we’re made to really unpack those things that we believe and question them. We might keep our beliefs, we might not. But I think that being introduced to those ideas [is] really important.”
Actions Archive
This back-to-school season we want to hear why you are an advocate for our right to learn.
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.