Pride and Black Lives Matter flags ban in Florida: What to know about SB 100
Sen. Randy Fine, R-Melbourne is once again sponsoring legislation banning banners with a 'political viewpoint' from public buildings, seeing the bill advance in a Feb. 11 committee meeting.
'The government should not be in the business of political viewpoints,' Fine said. 'To be clear, I would never support a private individual in their private capacity not to being able to fly any flag that they so choose, (but) the idea (here) is government doing it.'
Following Fine's announcement of SB 100 in December, several activist groups and politicians have criticized the legislation. The ACLU Florida, PEN America and Equality Florida have penned statements about the bill's impacts on Floridians if passed.
'This bill not only infringes on Floridians' self-expression in violation of the First Amendment but is blatantly homophobic and racist," Florida PEN Director Katie Blankenship said in a statement. "The bill is outright censorship of groups and the ban on symbols and flags being displayed by government and public schools, colleges, and universities would have a chilling effect on these communities."
What does SB 100 entail? Here's what to know.
SB 100, otherwise known as the "Display of Flags by Governmental Entities" bill, prohibits a governmental agency, local government, or other unit of local government from "erecting or displaying a flag thatrepresents a political viewpoint, including a politically partisan, racial, sexual orientation, gender, or political ideology viewpoint."
This ban would also include public schools, colleges and universities. The legislation was approved 5-2 vote by the Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee chaired by Fine.
According to the Florida Senate website, the bill requires any governmental entity that displays the United States flag must do so in a manner in which it is in a more prominent position than any other displayed flag.
"The bill allows an active or retired member of the United States Armed Forces or National Guardto use reasonable force to prevent the desecration, destruction, or removal of the United Statesflag, or to replace it to a prominent position, except when directly ordered not to do so by a lawenforcement officer who is acting in the scope of his or her employment," the bill's analysis states.
Florida Politics reported Sen. Tina Polsky further explained, 'If you're on your property burning the American flag, this bill would authorize them to exercise reasonable force to stop that behavior."
See critics, supporters of flag ban: Flag ban on public buildings in Florida renewed by GOP
It would not impact private citizens. This bill only impacts government entities.
"The bill further provides that the prohibition on the display of a flag representing a political viewpoint by a governmental entity does not limit a private individual's expression of private speech or viewpoints, or his or her rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nor does the prohibition limit a governmental entity's ability to display or erect a flag that is required or authorized by general law."
As for public employees, the analysis says their speech of public concern is protected by the First Amendment as citizen speech.
It adds their speech may be restricted only if the state's interest, as an employer, in promoting its efficiency of public services outweighs the employee's interests as a citizen in commenting on a matter of public concern.
Yes. Fine's proposed bill has been filed for consideration by state lawmakers two years in a row and has failed to pass.
While Gov. Ron DeSantis has yet to address the 2025 bill, he has supported previous legislation. According to the Tampa Bay Times, he told reporters at a press conference over a year ago that he agreed with possible restrictions.
'If you take a position that, we're going to fly the American flag and the state of Florida flag, and that's it, it's not targeting anybody. It's basically saying that we're not going to get into this business of doing this. So I think that's totally fine,' the governor said in 2024.
The bill doesn't include penalties for those who fly a banned flag; however, it does include the consequences for mishandling or defiling an approved flag.
The bill's analysis states: "In Florida, a person commits a second-degree misdemeanor if the person improperly uses the state or the U.S. flag by marking the flag, exposing an improperly marked flag for public viewing, or if a person publicly mutilates, defaces, defiles, defies, tramples upon, or by word or act casts contempt upon any such flag."
Continued, it is a first-degree misdemeanor if a person publicly "mutilates, defaces, tramples upon, or burns, with intent to insult, any flags, standards, colors, or ensigns of the U.S. or of Florida."
If passed, the bill would take effect July 1, 2025.
It has two more committee stops before reaching a floor vote. Florida Politics says it will go before the Senate Community Affairs Committee next.
Contributing: John Kennedy, USA TODAY NETWORK – FLORIDA
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Florida flags ban bill targets political 'viewpoints.' What to know
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
5 hours ago
Bipartisan support helps foundations avoid tax increase in new Trump legislation
Two Republican senators and a broad bipartisan coalition of funders and nonprofits prevented a 600% increase in taxes levied on the endowments of the largest private foundations as part of President Donald Trump's the tax and spending legislation. Thanks to their support, when Trump signed the bill into law on July 4, taxes went up on the endowments of the largest universities, but not on the endowments of philanthropic foundations. 'I do have to say that this took some persuasion,' said Sen. Todd Young of Indiana in an interview with The Associated Press. The other champion was Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, who did not respond to an interview request. Together, they advocated to remove the provision which, at the high end, would levy a tax of 10% on the investment earnings of foundations with more than $5 billion in assets, up from the current rate of 1.39%. The move reveals both the power of philanthropic groups, especially conservative ones, to sway legislators and a split in the administration's coalition between those who want to protect the independence of private philanthropy and those who think the sector supports resistance to the president's agenda. Young said he spoke with leaders or representatives of a dozen foundations in his state to understand what it would mean to increase these taxes on foundation endowments. Though Young didn't name any specific leaders, Indiana is home to numerous major foundations — including one of America's largest foundations, the Lilly Endowment, which holds shares in the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and reported assets of almost $80 billion at the end of last year. The Associated Press receives funding from the Lilly Endowment for its coverage of philanthropy and religion. Young said many in the Republican caucus appreciate the value of the investments private foundations make in their communities. 'Let's be honest here. The target of this excise tax increase was not the vast majority of private foundations. It was a handful of large foundations that are nationally known that have been accused of embracing and perpetuating certain woke policies and agendas,' Young said. While he didn't specify the specific foundations, Young was tapping into a critique of large progressive foundations brought by politicians like Vice President JD Vance. In a 2021 speech at the conservative think tank The Claremont Institute, Vance attacked foundations who fund movements for social justice and characterized their support for Black Lives Matter groups as 'investing in racial division.' 'We should eliminate all of the special privileges that exist for our nonprofit foundation class,' Vance said at the time. 'If you're spending all your money to teach racism to our children in their schools, why do we give you special tax breaks instead of taxing you more?' The White House has generally expressed support for that policy view. In an early executive order, Trump asked the attorney general to identify large foundations to investigate for civil rights violations, along with large corporations and universities. So far, the administration has not announced any investigations into foundations, even as the deadline included in the executive order has passed. Conservative philanthropic groups added their voice to oppose the proposed increase in taxes on foundations' endowment earnings. The Philanthropy Roundtable, which said it supports conservative and free market ideas, led a coalition to send a letter to Senate majority leader Sen. John Thune of Montana and Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, who leads the Senate Finance Committee. 'We know policies that siphon private dollars away from charities to line the government's coffers are antithetical to conservative values,' the signatories wrote of the proposed tax on foundation assets. The legislation also contains a mix of provisions that impact funders, nonprofits and communities. It allows the vast majority of tax filers to take a charitable deduction of up to $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for married couples, which advocates believe will increase the amount everyday donors give. The law also moved forward with a new cap on itemized deductions for the wealthiest tax filers, which advocates think will deter charitable giving. It also creates a new requirement for corporations to donate a minimum of 1% of their taxable income before receiving a tax benefit. Many corporations do not meet that threshold, meaning they may be discouraged from giving at all. United Philanthropy Forum is a membership organization for foundations, which has long advocated around issues important to the sector. Besides the recent spending bill, they've followed executive orders, provisions that would have threatened the tax-exempt status of organizations and cuts to social safety net programs. Matthew L. Evans, the forum's vice president of advocacy and external relations, said the forum shifted their strategy several years ago away from defending the interests of the sector to advocating for the communities which private philanthropy serves. 'It really is an all hands on deck moment because again this is such an unprecedented time for us,' Evans said. The forum was part of a coalition of nonprofit associations that helped organize a letter pushing back on multiple provisions in the spending bill, which almost 3,000 nonprofits signed on to support. But one of the most important messages nonprofit advocates were delivering to lawmakers was around the impacts of cuts to social safety net programs, said Kyle Caldwell, who leads the Council of Michigan Foundations. He said his organization has advocated for foundations and the communities they serve in Michigan for decades. 'If you think about all of the systems that were in place: access to health care, access to education, access to food. All of those really were targeted services to the most vulnerable in our community. That's where philanthropy invests most. That's where nonprofits act most," he said, adding that the cuts will "put higher demands on the nonprofit sector, which was already overburdened.' When asked about concerns over the impact of the cuts, Senator Young from Indiana said he thinks the bill strikes the right balance. 'What we have found is that when the economy grows, people give more because they to have more to give,' Young said. ___
Fox News
5 hours ago
- Fox News
Unearthed social media posts expose radical anti-Israel views of Mamdani's dad: 'Colonial occupation'
FIRST ON FOX: Mahmood Mamdani, the Columbia University professor and father of New York City socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, has a social media presence littered with anti-Israel comments and praise for radical activists, a Fox News Digital review found. Mamdani, 79, who Fox News Digital previously reported sits on the advisory council of an anti-Israel organization that supports boycotts and sanctions of Israel, has posted on his X account about Israel on multiple occasions using terms like "settlers" and "colonialism." "When all ranks of the Occupation, from the armed settler to the settler state, claim 'the right of self-defense', what language is left for those who defend themselves against the Occupation but the right to resist?," Mamdani posted online on May 21, 2021 as Israel was involved in a violent conflict with Hamas. Earlier that month, Mamdani wrote, "The resistance this time began in Jerusalem and spread to Gaza, now the West Bank and Palestinian communities beyond. This is not a conflict between Israel and Hamas. We are witnessing something far more meaningful, the birth of the Third Intifadah against settler colonialism!." Calls for a third intifada or a "global intifada", which Zohran Mamdani recently drew heat from Jewish groups for refusing to condemn, is widely considered by many in the Jewish community as condoning violence against Israel. "Palestinians have a right to resist," Mamdani said in another post. "This is a colonial occupation, not a conflict!" In October 2014, Mamdani posted a "tribute" to African political activist Ali Mazrui, who Mamdani once co-hosted a panel alongside, according to Middle East Forum. Mazrui has a long track record of controversial statements about Jews including suggesting they had "a certain kind of impurity" likening them to "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and saying they've "landed with Mr. Hyde's evil identity," Middle East Forum reported. Past statements on Israel from both Zohran and Mahmood Mamdani have been a focus of the mayoral race with various Jewish groups speaking out and accusing the pair of antisemitism, a charge that Mamdani has pushed back against. Mahmood, a professor of anthropology at New York's Columbia University, which has been at the epicenter of the pro-Palestine protests in the U.S. Canary Mission, calls Mahmood a "Marxist" professor who is "known for his anti-Israel views and obsession with 'colonialism.'" Mahmood was also one of the Columbia faculty members who donned an orange vest and locked arms in attempts to keep Avi Weinberg, an economics student at Columbia, and a small group of Jewish classmates from entering a pro-Palestine encampment on Columbia's campus during the anti-Israel protests following the October 7th Hamas massacre. "Zohran Mamdani has built his political brand on the same radical, hate-filled and anti-American ideology his father, Mahmood Mamdani, has spent decades promoting—one that demonizes Jewish people and legitimizes anti-democratic violence," Brooke Goldstein, a human rights attorney who specializes in antisemitism, told Fox News Digital. "The Jew-hatred the Mamdani family peddles is fundamentally anti-American and violates the core values our country was founded on—tolerance, equality, and liberty. Our nation's strength lies in its diversity and commitment to protecting minority rights. Antisemitic world views threaten the peace and security of our communities." Goldstein told Fox News Digital that Mahmood Mamdani's "dangerous worldview doesn't belong anywhere in American public life." "It is also a window on anti-Jewish and anti-democratic radicalization that poisons our young, corrupts their minds and steals their souls," Goldstein continued. "If Zohran Mamdani can't—or won't—disavow these beliefs, we have every reason to be alarmed. We don't need anti-American racist Jew-haters in government. We need leaders who protect all of us—not divide us, or worse, decide which among us are worth protecting." Fox News Digital reached out to Mahmood Mamdani and the Mamdani campaign for comment.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bipartisan support helps foundations avoid tax increase in new Trump legislation
Two Republican senators and a broad bipartisan coalition of funders and nonprofits prevented a 600% increase in taxes levied on the endowments of the largest private foundations as part of President Donald Trump's the tax and spending legislation. Thanks to their support, when Trump signed the bill into law on July 4, taxes went up on the endowments of the largest universities, but not on the endowments of philanthropic foundations. 'I do have to say that this took some persuasion,' said Sen. Todd Young of Indiana in an interview with The Associated Press. The other champion was Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, who did not respond to an interview request. Together, they advocated to remove the provision which, at the high end, would levy a tax of 10% on the investment earnings of foundations with more than $5 billion in assets, up from the current rate of 1.39%. The move reveals both the power of philanthropic groups, especially conservative ones, to sway legislators and a split in the administration's coalition between those who want to protect the independence of private philanthropy and those who think the sector supports resistance to the president's agenda. Backing of Republican senators and conservative groups was key Young said he spoke with leaders or representatives of a dozen foundations in his state to understand what it would mean to increase these taxes on foundation endowments. Though Young didn't name any specific leaders, Indiana is home to numerous major foundations — including one of America's largest foundations, the Lilly Endowment, which holds shares in the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and reported assets of almost $80 billion at the end of last year. The Associated Press receives funding from the Lilly Endowment for its coverage of philanthropy and religion. Young said many in the Republican caucus appreciate the value of the investments private foundations make in their communities. 'Let's be honest here. The target of this excise tax increase was not the vast majority of private foundations. It was a handful of large foundations that are nationally known that have been accused of embracing and perpetuating certain woke policies and agendas,' Young said. While he didn't specify the specific foundations, Young was tapping into a critique of large progressive foundations brought by politicians like Vice President JD Vance. In a 2021 speech at the conservative think tank The Claremont Institute, Vance attacked foundations who fund movements for social justice and characterized their support for Black Lives Matter groups as 'investing in racial division.' 'We should eliminate all of the special privileges that exist for our nonprofit foundation class,' Vance said at the time. 'If you're spending all your money to teach racism to our children in their schools, why do we give you special tax breaks instead of taxing you more?' The White House has generally expressed support for that policy view. In an early executive order, Trump asked the attorney general to identify large foundations to investigate for civil rights violations, along with large corporations and universities. So far, the administration has not announced any investigations into foundations, even as the deadline included in the executive order has passed. Conservative philanthropic groups added their voice to oppose the proposed increase in taxes on foundations' endowment earnings. The Philanthropy Roundtable, which said it supports conservative and free market ideas, led a coalition to send a letter to Senate majority leader Sen. John Thune of Montana and Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, who leads the Senate Finance Committee. 'We know policies that siphon private dollars away from charities to line the government's coffers are antithetical to conservative values,' the signatories wrote of the proposed tax on foundation assets. Other provisions include a charitable deduction but also new limits on company giving The legislation also contains a mix of provisions that impact funders, nonprofits and communities. It allows the vast majority of tax filers to take a charitable deduction of up to $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for married couples, which advocates believe will increase the amount everyday donors give. The law also moved forward with a new cap on itemized deductions for the wealthiest tax filers, which advocates think will deter charitable giving. It also creates a new requirement for corporations to donate a minimum of 1% of their taxable income before receiving a tax benefit. Many corporations do not meet that threshold, meaning they may be discouraged from giving at all. United Philanthropy Forum is a membership organization for foundations, which has long advocated around issues important to the sector. Besides the recent spending bill, they've followed executive orders, provisions that would have threatened the tax-exempt status of organizations and cuts to social safety net programs. Matthew L. Evans, the forum's vice president of advocacy and external relations, said the forum shifted their strategy several years ago away from defending the interests of the sector to advocating for the communities which private philanthropy serves. 'It really is an all hands on deck moment because again this is such an unprecedented time for us,' Evans said. The forum was part of a coalition of nonprofit associations that helped organize a letter pushing back on multiple provisions in the spending bill, which almost 3,000 nonprofits signed on to support. But one of the most important messages nonprofit advocates were delivering to lawmakers was around the impacts of cuts to social safety net programs, said Kyle Caldwell, who leads the Council of Michigan Foundations. He said his organization has advocated for foundations and the communities they serve in Michigan for decades. 'If you think about all of the systems that were in place: access to health care, access to education, access to food. All of those really were targeted services to the most vulnerable in our community. That's where philanthropy invests most. That's where nonprofits act most," he said, adding that the cuts will "put higher demands on the nonprofit sector, which was already overburdened.' When asked about concerns over the impact of the cuts, Senator Young from Indiana said he thinks the bill strikes the right balance. 'What we have found is that when the economy grows, people give more because they to have more to give,' Young said. ___ Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit Sign in to access your portfolio
