Look, it's been almost 25 years since I took Con Law in law school. But I distinctly remember that the government engaging in viewpoint based restriction was especially offensive under the First Amendment. So the government stating when a person can or cannot speak would itself be a likely violation of the First Amendment (subject to proverbial exception that the government can prohibit yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater). But viewpoint based restrictions were ESPECIALLY egregious and virtually impossible to pass judicial scrutiny. The federal restrictions would have to pass strict judicial scrutiny and be the most narrowly tailored restraint (i.e., can't be broad or open-ended) needed to obtain a compelling government objection. This strict scrutiny test is virtually impossible to satisfy that's how high these standards are in order to pass constitutional muster. So the governmental restraints on what seems to be viewpoint based restraints (e.g., nothing WOKE, nothing so called “anti-American,” nothing pro-diversity) is just confusing to me, because it really does lean against a certain progressive viewpoint. But, like I said, it's been almost 25 years since I took Con Law. Maybe the case law has changed?
Soviet Union did this. It destroyed their science.
Where the first felon is getting all his lessons from… buyer beware!
As it will destroy ours as well.
Apparently they want DEI in science.
But only a specific kind, of course
Look, it's been almost 25 years since I took Con Law in law school. But I distinctly remember that the government engaging in viewpoint based restriction was especially offensive under the First Amendment. So the government stating when a person can or cannot speak would itself be a likely violation of the First Amendment (subject to proverbial exception that the government can prohibit yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater). But viewpoint based restrictions were ESPECIALLY egregious and virtually impossible to pass judicial scrutiny. The federal restrictions would have to pass strict judicial scrutiny and be the most narrowly tailored restraint (i.e., can't be broad or open-ended) needed to obtain a compelling government objection. This strict scrutiny test is virtually impossible to satisfy that's how high these standards are in order to pass constitutional muster. So the governmental restraints on what seems to be viewpoint based restraints (e.g., nothing WOKE, nothing so called “anti-American,” nothing pro-diversity) is just confusing to me, because it really does lean against a certain progressive viewpoint. But, like I said, it's been almost 25 years since I took Con Law. Maybe the case law has changed?