By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new Florida law grants state leaders the power to label groups as domestic or foreign terrorist organizations, with the governor and the Florida Cabinet holding approval authority. Once designated, these groups lose state funding and university students supporting them can be expelled and reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Critics, including free speech advocates, express concern over the law’s vague language and its potential to restrict educational programs and target student protesters.
Read the original article here
It’s certainly a significant development coming out of Florida, with Governor Ron DeSantis signing a new law that gives state leaders the power to designate groups as domestic or foreign terrorist organizations. This designation then opens the door to expelling any state university students who are found to support these designated groups. The governor, along with three other members of the Florida Cabinet—the attorney general, chief financial officer, and agriculture commissioner—will have the final say on these designations.
One of the immediate concerns raised by this legislation is the broad and potentially ambiguous definition of “support.” What exactly does it mean for a student to “support” a group that’s been labeled a terrorist organization? This vagueness, many are pointing out, leaves the door wide open for subjective interpretation and potential misuse. The fear is that this could extend to anything from active membership to expressing solidarity online or attending a rally.
The implications for free speech and association are also a major point of contention. Critics are questioning how this new law aligns with First Amendment protections, particularly the right to free speech and the right to assemble. The worry is that this measure could be used to suppress dissent and silence groups or individuals who hold views that are not in line with the current administration. It’s been observed that the language used in the law appears too broad and is ripe for exploitation.
The potential for this law to be used as a political tool is another significant concern being voiced. There’s a palpable sense of unease that if a future administration in Florida were to lean differently, say becoming more progressive, then groups currently favored by the Republican party could potentially be targeted. The hypothetical scenario of MAGA being designated a terrorist organization in such a future, leading to the expulsion of its student supporters, is frequently brought up as an example of how this power could be turned on its head.
This idea of shifting power dynamics and potential retribution is a recurring theme in discussions around this law. If such a law were to be enacted in a more liberal state, and groups like Turning Point USA were labeled terrorist organizations due to their involvement in events like January 6th, leading to the expulsion of their student members, many wonder if Governor DeSantis would simply accept it. The prevailing sentiment is that such a move would undoubtedly provoke outrage from those currently supporting this Florida legislation.
Furthermore, there’s a strong argument being made that this law is fundamentally unconstitutional. The idea of banning organizations, even under the guise of combating terrorism, and expelling students based on their affiliations, is seen by many as a direct assault on established rights. There’s a particular mention of a Muslim advocacy group, CAIR, being a target, suggesting that the law might be specifically designed to circumvent protections for certain communities under a broader, more general framework.
The comparison to historical authoritarian regimes is also being drawn by some. Concerns are being voiced about the parallels between this type of legislation and the methods used by fascist governments to consolidate power, consolidate loyalty, and suppress opposition. The emphasis is on how these historical instances often involved the labeling of specific groups as enemies, the purging of dissenting voices, and the concentration of power within a single leader or party.
The notion of a “Free State” of Florida, often used in political rhetoric, is being contrasted with the perceived restrictions this law imposes on individual liberties and freedom of thought. The irony of a state promoting itself as a bastion of freedom while enacting measures that could lead to expulsions based on political or ideological support is not lost on critics. The idea that one could be expelled for holding views that differ from the governor, or even from elected officials like the agriculture commissioner, is seen as particularly alarming.
There’s also a concern about the long-term impact this law could have on higher education in Florida. If universities become environments where students fear expulsion for their associations, it could deter potential students from enrolling, impacting the reputation and financial stability of these institutions. The idea of students seeking education elsewhere, in states perceived as more intellectually free, is a realistic consequence being considered.
Finally, the way the term “terrorism” is being redefined is a point of significant discussion. Historically, terrorism was associated with violent acts like bombings or mass shootings. However, this law, some argue, is shifting the definition to encompass “thought crimes” or affiliations with groups that hold certain political ideologies, which many find to be a dangerous expansion of the term. The question is raised: who are these groups truly terrorizing, and why?