Docs v. Glocks on en banc review at the Eleventh Circuit
Yesterday, Florida’s Treasure Coast Newspapers published my opinion column on the heavily debated “Docs vs. Glocks” case. Pacific Legal Foundation‘s Caleb Trotter and Deborah J. La Fetra recently filed an amicus brief in support of physicians’ First Amendment right to free speech in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida, a/k/a “Docs vs. Glocks,” where the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, three times in a row, the Florida law which restricts doctors’ ability to question their patients about gun ownership.
In my op-ed, I explain why supporting doctors’ free speech rights here amounts to support of free speech for all professionals:
This case might focus on doctors, but it affects all Americans. If the state can violate the freedom of speech of doctors for spurious reasons, then the state can violate your freedom of speech, too.
As a future member of the Florida Bar (fingers-crossed), I am particularly interested in the case’s outcome. At a minimum, all professionals — lawyers, teachers, journalists and others — should take notice when the state says it can ban the topics about which a fellow professional can speak.
Bottom line: physicians, lawyers, veterinarians, advertisers and other licensed professionals beware.
The Eleventh Circuit will hear oral argument on en banc review in Wollschlaeger tomorrow, June 21, and for the sake of all professionals, I hope it makes the right decision.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›