Case 4:22-cv-00324-MW-MAF Document 44 Filed 11/17/22 Page 117 of 139
idea that “objective” equals discussing without approval and/or criticizing or condemning the specified ideas.
For example, Defendants emphasize that “[t]he statute’s dichotomy between discussing a concept ‘in an objective manner’ as distinct from ‘endorsing’ or ‘espousing’ the concept provides more than fair notice of what is prohibited.” ECF No. 52 at 35–36, in Case No.: 4:22cv304-MW/MAF. According to Defendants, the plain meaning of “objective,” when read together with “endorsing” or “espousing,” allows for discussion of the eight concepts “as concepts that others have articulated” but not for “voicing approval the concepts”—for example, “saying the concept is correct or true.” Id. at 36. Thus, Defendants suggest it is obvious that “objective” means, simply, “without approval.”
Of course, Defendants’ construction redefines the notions of both “objectivity” and “criticism.” As the Novoa Plaintiffs succinctly put it, “[i]t suggests that speech condemning a viewpoint is objective, but approving a viewpoint renders the teaching unobjective.” ECF No. 19 at 44–45, in Case No.: 4:22cv324-MW/MAF.
Defendants dig their heels into this doublespeak while relying upon other notions of “objectivity” that arguably contradict their own point.[1] For example,
- ↑ Even the definition of “objective” provided by the IFA’s sponsor, Representative (then-Speaker pro tempore) Bryan Avila, seems contradictory. When asked to define what it means to teach something from an objective standpoint under the IFA, Representative Avila stated, “[S]omething that would compel someone to feel a sense of guilt, or a sense of anguish, or something to that extent … would certainly violate that piece of being objective within a
117
