this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

90 readers
208 users here now

Share interesting Technology news and links.

Rules:

  1. No paywalled sites at all.
  2. News articles has to be recent, not older than 2 weeks (14 days).
  3. No videos.

To encourage more original sources and keep this space commercial free as much as I could, the following websites are Blacklisted:

Encouraged:

founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
 

I post this here because I think there is a interesting discussion out of this, what do you people think about this?

In the summer of 2020, two issues dominated the headlines: the COVID pandemic and the widespread unrest surrounding George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, and the “racial reckoning.” It was in this environment, with the country also at or near the apex of “cancel culture,” that the University of Central Florida tried to fire associate professor of psychology Charles Negy for his tweets about race and society. Negy fought back and sued.

Five years later, his lawsuit continues — and last week, it brought good news not just for Professor Negy but for everyone who cares about free speech on campus.

Last week, Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled that Negy’s lawsuit could proceed against four of the five administrators he sued. Importantly, the court denied claims of qualified immunity, a doctrine that says public officials aren’t liable for unconstitutional activity unless they knew or should have known their actions were unconstitutional. By denying qualified immunity to UCF’s administrators, Judge Mendoza formally recognized what was obvious from the very beginning: UCF knew or should have known that what it was doing violated the First Amendment, but they went ahead and did it anyway.

top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] werty@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

According to the UCF investigation, it is protected speech to say that girl scouts preserve their virginity (p. 25), but not that women are attracted to men with money (p. 26). It is protected speech to say that Jesus was schizophrenic (p. 36), but unprotected to say that Jesus did not come into the world to die for everyone’s sins (p. 36). It’s protected to say that Islam is cruel and not a religion of peace (p. 107) but not that it is a toxic mythology (p. 35).

HA HA

qualified immunity, a doctrine that says public officials aren’t liable for unconstitutional activity unless they knew or should have known their actions were unconstitutional.

Public officials should know what is or isn't constitutional so this defence shouldn't exist, right? Read the first quote again and noone knows what's constitutional. What a fucking mess the US is.