Florida Attorney General calls federal judge's ruling on Naples Pride 'radical and wrong'
A day after a federal judge ruled in favor of Naples Pride, granting a preliminary injunction and allowing an outdoors drag performance, Florida's top attorney called the decision "both radical and wrong."
"I stand by our law that protects kids from drag shows and other sexually explicit adult performances," Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier wrote May 13 on X. "The decisions out of Fort Myers and the Eleventh Circuit panel are both radical and wrong. My office will fight aggressively and swiftly to get these bad decisions overturned."
Uthmeier later added that "trans activists don't have the First Amendment right to expose kids to their weird sexual fetishes."
Jae Williams, spokesperson for Uthmeier's office, during a May 14 phone call said that Uthmeier's post on X is his statement. When asked if Uthmeier or one of his staff members would comment on the record, Williams said Uthmeier's office did not have further comment.
'Clearly invalid': Federal judge rules Naples Pride's Pride Fest drag performance may happen outdoors
On May 12, in a 49-page order, District Judge John Steele referred to the city's permitting restrictions as "clearly invalid" under the First Amendment. He had reserved ruling in a hearing May 2. Both sides of the issue rallied in downtown Fort Myers prior to the hearing.
In his order, Steele granted the preliminary injunction in part, saying Naples Pride's drag performance is protected speech.
The drag performance, which is part of Naples Pride's Pride Fest, is slated for June 7.
The City of Naples, Mayor Teresa Heitmann, Naples Police Chief Ciro Dominguez, Naples City Council members and Naples Police are listed as co-defendants in the discrimination lawsuit, accused of violating the First Amendment.
In his order, Steele wrote that Naples Pride forbids performers from incorporating nudity or vulgar, sexual, or obscene content into their performances, among other restrictions that would allow the presence of minors.
Former President Bill Clinton, who served in the White House for two terms between 1993 and 2001, nominated Steele for the federal court post on June 6, 2000.
Naples Pride filed its federal lawsuit after city officials denied their permit for an outdoor drag performance and instead would only allow an indoor performance restricted to people of age.
The order notes that Pride Fest's 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2022 editions, including the drag performance, happened outdoors on Cambier Park's main stage. According to the order, a series of complaints in 2022 led to an investigation into the performances, causing the drag performance to move indoors.
The initially approved permit, which had received a 5-2 vote, was modified to require that the drag-show performance be held indoors and attendance restricted to adults only.
Joshua Goldman, the attorney representing Naples Pride, on May 2 said in court before Steele that drag performances are "not adult entertainment."
The preliminary injunction allowing the outdoor show expires June 8.
Tomas Rodriguez is a Breaking/Live News Reporter for the Naples Daily News and The News-Press. You can reach Tomas at TRodriguez@gannett.com or 772-333-5501. Connect with him on Threads @tomasfrobeltran, Instagram @tomasfrobeltran, Facebook @tomasrodrigueznews and Bluesky @tomasfrodriguez.
This article originally appeared on Naples Daily News: Florida Attorney General attacks judge over Naples Pride ruling
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
an hour ago
- News24
Harvard scores a temporary victory in battle against Trump administration ‘vendetta'
A court on Thursday put a temporary stay on Donald Trump's latest effort to stop foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, as the US president's battle with one of the world's most prestigious universities intensified. A proclamation issued by the White House late Wednesday sought to bar most new international students at Harvard from entering the country, and said existing foreign enrollees risked having their visas terminated. 'Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' the order said. Harvard quickly amended an existing complaint filed in federal court, saying: 'This is not the Administration's first attempt to sever Harvard from its international students.' '(It) is part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard's exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' READ | 'Such a disgrace': Outrage as Trump ramps up attacks on Harvard, Columbia US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Thursday ruled the government cannot enforce Trump's proclamation. Harvard had showed, she said, that without a temporary restraining order, it risked sustaining 'immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties'. The same judge had already blocked Trump's earlier effort to bar international students from enrolling at the storied university. The government already cut around $3.2 billion of federal grants and contracts benefiting Harvard and pledged to exclude the Cambridge, Massachusetts, institution from any future federal funding. Harvard has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and 'viewpoint diversity'. Trump has also singled out international students at Harvard, who accounted for 27% of total enrolment in the 2024-2025 academic year and are a major source of income. In its filing, Harvard acknowledged that Trump had the authority to bar an entire class of aliens if it was deemed to be in the public interest, but stressed that was not the case in this action. The president's actions thus are not undertaken to protect the 'interests of the United States' but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard. Harvard filing Since returning to office Trump has targeted elite US universities which he and his allies accuse of being hotbeds of antisemitism, liberal bias and 'woke' ideology. Trump's education secretary also threatened on Wednesday to strip Columbia University of its accreditation. The Republican has targeted the New York Ivy League institution for allegedly ignoring harassment of Jewish students, throwing all of its federal funding into doubt. Unlike Harvard, several top institutions - including Columbia - have already bowed to far-reaching demands from the Trump administration.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Florida education officials grill Hillsborough superintendent over LGBTQ+ books in schools
State Board of Education members recently grilled Hillsborough County's public schools superintendent after state officials condemned books in his district's schools that they called "pornographic." Superintendent Van Ayres was called to the June 4 board meeting after receiving a letter from Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. At issue: The books "Call Me By Your Name" and "Jack of Hearts (And Other Parts)," which both involve LGBTQ+ themes. Diaz, who is in line to become the next president of the University of West Florida, said they were "pornographic and inappropriate books." According to the book's publishers, "Call Me by Your Name" is the "story of a sudden and powerful romance that blossoms between an adolescent boy and a summer guest at his parents' cliffside mansion on the Italian Riviera," and "Jack of Hearts (And Other Parts)" is "about an unapologetically queer teen working to uncover a blackmailer threatening him back into the closet." "Unfortunately, your lack of leadership regarding the selection, approval and maintenance of library media materials continues to put children at risk and undermines parental rights," Diaz wrote in his May 9 letter to Ayres, who has led the district – the seventh largest in the U.S. – since November 2023. Florida's public schools have seen a significant increase in book removals, driven by legislation that empowers parents to challenge materials they consider inappropriate, leading to the removal of thousands of books that address LGBTQ+ themes, race, or even classic literature. It's sparked a national controversy, with critics arguing that such moves constitute censorship and violate First Amendment rights, prompting lawsuits from authors, publishers, and advocacy groups. In Hillsborough County, more than 600 books were removed from circulation in mid-May, after state officials – including Diaz and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier – pressured school districts. Those books included the two mentioned by Diaz. In heated questioning, board members asked Ayres why these books were not flagged sooner. But Ayres said "inappropriate materials will absolutely not be in our libraries, and it does not take a process for us to do that." Banned book list: Hundreds of books pulled from Florida schools listed in new DOE release. Here are the titles Board member Ryan Petty countered: "These are nasty, disgusting books that have no place in a school in Florida. Please help me understand what your review process is, because it took me less than five minutes to realize these books violate the statute and they should not be in our schools." Ayres said he removed the books specifically named by Uthmeier and Diaz in their letters in "an abundance of caution." Stephana Ferrell with Florida Freedom to Read, a group that advocates for book access, told board members she was troubled with them only reading one-page excerpts about the books instead of trusting media specialists who read and analyze them in their entirety. Ferrell added that her group is OK with a book going through the objection process "so long that it is considered in its entirety for literary, artistic, scientific and political value." She said the problem is when it's considered only by "standards set by the state." From the archives: Which books are allowed? Varied interpretations of Florida law lead to confusion at schools "This is not about parental rights," Ferrell said. "This is about state control and this idea that our libraries are government speech, that they can regulate and decide what's available based on their own viewpoints." In November, the Florida Department of Education released a list of about 700 books that were "removed or discontinued" from public schools in the 2023-2024 school year. The list is in accordance with state law from 2022, which increased regulation of school library books. The state education board approved a rule to publish an annual list in 2023 to provide "transparency" to families. Both "Call Me By Your Name" and "Jack of Hearts (And Other Parts)" are on the list. These actions also follow Florida's record of having the most book bans in the nation, according to PEN America in November. The free speech group's report at that time had more than 4,500 instances of books being removed from classroom libraries, removed pending a review or restricted based on grade or parental permission. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Hillsborough superintendent in hot water over LGBTQ+ titles in schools
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Social media giants ask judge to block Georgia age verification law
Social media companies have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Georgia law that would create new online age restrictions for minors. A June 3 hearing was held in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia in downtown Atlanta. Jill Nolin/Georgia Recorder A federal judge heard arguments this week on a Georgia law aimed at restricting social media use for minors and requiring Georgians to confirm their age before viewing adult websites. Judge Amy Totenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia announced at the Tuesday hearing that she will determine soon whether to hear more evidence regarding a lawsuit by a group called NetChoice to stop the law. NetChoice represents various internet-based services, including powerful businesses like Google and Meta, as well as smaller companies like online journal site Dreamwidth Studios. On the same day, a Florida judge blocked sections of a similar Florida law. Children under the age of 16 would need parental consent to open social media accounts under the new Georgia law, which is set to go into effect July 1. NetChoice filed a lawsuit in May seeking to prevent that from happening. The companies claim the rules violate young people's First Amendment rights, as well as place unnecessary burdens on social media companies. Attorneys also argued the revised rules strip away some of the flexibility of parents monitoring what online sites their children are accessing. Jeremy Maltz, an attorney representing NetChoice in the lawsuit, argued at Tuesday's court hearing that many people using online websites affected by the Georgia law would consider it an invasion of privacy if they had to use sensitive information to create an account. The plaintiffs argue that adults could face a burden if companies require them to potentially give companies driver licenses, banking or credit card information or use facial recognition software in order to access user-generated online sites. Data breaches and other cyber security threats could be increased by the new age guidelines, Maltz said. 'We know people are going to have to provide some sort of information to access protected speech,' he said. And despite the law exempting educational, public safety, and professional networking platforms, Martz said it would also create new verification hurdles even for innocuous sites such as college football and recipe message boards. 'This bill targets minors at the places where minors go to engage in free speech,' Maltz said. Republican state lawmakers push for Georgia law to require proof of adulthood to view adult websites Georgia lawmakers passed SB 351 in 2024 with bipartisan support. Logan Winkles, a state deputy attorney general, said that social media is designed to drive engagement and promote addiction, and the intent of legislators in passing the law was to protect children from adult bad actors online. 'Everyone agrees that social media poses some risk to children,' Winkles said. NetChoice successfully overturned similar laws in Arkansas and Ohio after arguing they unfairly censored free speech on online platforms. The bill requires social media companies to make commercially reasonable efforts to verify the age of their users, which can be done through methods including banking and credit card accounts, facial and fingerprint recognition software scanning. The Age Verification Providers Association, which supports third-party age verification businesses, reports that about a dozen states have passed laws restricting or requiring parents to consent to minors accessing social media. In several states, including Arkansas, California and Ohio, court orders have been issued to block the provisions of the law. As of May, the age verification group listed Georgia among the 24 states that have passed laws requiring age verification to access online pornography. Opponents say such laws could create privacy concerns and prevent people from accessing constitutionally protected speech. Winkles said at Tuesday's hearing that legislators and Gov. Brian Kemp backed the law to protect more kids and teens from social media sites that lead to higher rates of bullying and mental health problems such as depression and that technology can estimate a person's age without revealing their identity. 'What we know is there are many other ways to verify ID other than showing government ID,' Winkles said. But Totenberg questioned the verification processes. 'It doesn't seem very precise,' Totenberg said. 'It's a highly subjective standard and I'm not sure what it ultimately means.' The law allows parents and guardians to file complaints with the attorney general office if they believe a company isn't complying with age verification. Violations of the law may result in a fine of up to $2,500 per violation. On Tuesday, federal Judge Mark Walker of the northern district of Florida blocked sections of Florida's law banning children under 14 from having social media accounts and requiring parents' approval for teens as old as 16 while expressing concerns about social media's adverse effects on children. Georgia attorneys contend that the state's new social media rules stand up to legal scrutiny and differ from states like Florida, which limited companies' ability to control user-posted content. Right wing officials from several states have expressed concerns about social media companies blocking conservative viewpoints. John Acevedo, an Emory University constitutional law professor, pointed out that when it's pornography, there has been a legal history showing a legitimate interest in protecting children. 'Really, it's not controversial to put an age requirement in, but the controversy is the manner in which the age requirement is implemented,' he said Wednesday. 'Conversely, in social media there's a controversy over whether we should even limit social media at all to any age group.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
