Y A W N. Florida's Gov. DeSantis "Doesn't Get" How American Expression... Is Truly... Free... Here In America.

In no manner a novel holding, as the federal trial-level court in Miami came to exactly the same conclusion, we read this evening that Gov. Ron DeSantis cannot understand actual First Amendment law, as written over the past half century at least.

And he, and his goose-steppers have been told to pack it in. [This would suggest that he slept through most of his Yale undergrad classes, as well. Too much partying as a frat boy, and legacy admitted baseball player, I gather.]

This purported act he signed is. . . is no law, at all. And the Supremes will agree, if the moron DeSantis decides to waste his time and appeal.

Florida and Texas are now clearly two places I'd never live in, and perhaps never willingly visit again now. Not under these anti-freedom governors, and their GOP controlled legislatures. Here's the latest, from the fine 67 page opinion:

. . . The question at the core of this appeal is whether the Facebooks and Twitters of the world -- indisputably “private actors” with First Amendment rights -- are engaged in constitutionally protected expressive activity when they moderate and curate the content that they disseminate on their platforms. The State of Florida insists that they aren’t, and it has enacted a first-of-its-kind law to combat what some of its proponents perceive to be a concerted effort by “the ‘big tech’ oligarchs in Silicon Valley” to “silenc[e]” “conservative” speech in favor of a “radical leftist” agenda. To that end, the new law would, among other things, prohibit certain social-media companies from “deplatforming” political candidates under any circumstances, prioritizing or deprioritizing any post or message “by or about” a candidate, and, more broadly, removing anything posted by a “journalistic enterprise” based on its content. . . .

We hold that it is substantially likely that social-media companies -- even the biggest ones are “private actors” whose rights the First Amendment protects, Manhattan Cmty., 139 S. Ct. at 1926, that their so-called “content-moderation” decisions constitute protected exercises of editorial judgment, and that the provisions of the new Florida law that restrict large platforms’ ability to engage in content moderation unconstitutionally burden that prerogative. We further conclude that it is substantially likely that one of the law’s particularly onerous disclosure provisions -- which would require covered platforms to provide a “thorough rationale” for each and every content-moderation decision they make -- violates the First Amendment. Accordingly, we hold that the companies are entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of those provisions. . . .

S.B. 7072 triggers First Amendment scrutiny because it restricts social-media platforms’ exercise of editorial judgment and requires them to make certain disclosures; (2) strict scrutiny applies to some of the Act’s content-moderation restrictions while intermediate scrutiny applies to others; (3) the Act’s disclosure provisions should be assessed under the standard articulated in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985); (4) it is substantially likely that the Act’s content-moderation restrictions will not survive even intermediate scrutiny. . . .

Grinning ear to ear, here now. Onward -- put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ronnie. . . .

नमस्ते