“The First Amendment is an inconvenient thing. It protects expression that some find wrongheaded, or offensive, or even ridiculous,” Newsom wrote in a concurring opinion.
“But for the same reason that the government can’t muzzle so-called ‘conservative’ speech under the guise of preventing on campus ‘harassment,’ the state can’t exercise its coercive power to censor so-called ‘woke’ speech with which it disagrees. What’s good for mine is (whether I like it or not) good for thine.”
[...]
The Eleventh Circuit opinion goes into depth about the rights of elected officials like Warren to engage in political speech, even if it runs counter to what the governor thinks.
DeSantis argued he was entitled to punish Warren because the prosecutor had acted as a government employee. The Eleventh Circuit, however, concluded it “seems suspect” to apply a U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing such punishment for rank-and-file state workers to an elected official.
A different U.S. Supreme Court ruling noted that elected office holders enjoy the right “to enter the field of political controversy,” Pryor continued. Also, that “[t]he role that elected officials play in our society makes it all the more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves.”
“Warren’s speech occurred outside the workplace, and he never distributed the advocacy statements inside the workplace or included them in internal materials or training sessions. He employed no workplace resources and never marshaled the statements through his process for creating policies. Neither statement referenced any Florida law that would go unenforced,” the court said.