Post #2357540

2026-05-08 07:33 UTC

@mpe@hcommons.social Obviously I am very much in favour of this verdict, even though it's much too late to undo the damage. But I have to admit it's hard to see how a budget cut, however ill-conceived, can be construed as a First-Amendment violation.

Replies (1)

@martinvermeer@fediscience.org 2026-05-08 08:19

@mike@sauropods.win @mpe@hcommons.social It becomes a first-amendment violation if the violators state precisely which elements of protected speech in the defunded organization's documents are their reason for the defunding. > The lawsuits challenging the grant cuts drew wide attention this spring, when the plaintiffs filed documents showing that two DOGE employees had used ChatGPT to flag grants that violated Mr. Trump’s executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. > The two employees, Nate Cavanaugh and Justin Fox, also used keywords like “L.G.B.T.Q.,” “BIPOC,” “equality,” “immigration” and “citizenship” to draw up a list of the “craziest” grants, which DOGE later publicized online. Note that outright censorship isn't the only free-speech or freedom-of-the-press violation. These enumerated rights are interpreted broadly, and already treating people differently based on what they say constitutes a violation - if the government does it. If a private person, like a newspaper editor, does it, the editorial decision is itself protected as free speech.

Open ##2357541