Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/32

 853, 867 (1982) (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). In the first sense, the First Amendment right to receive information “flows ineluctably from the sender’s right to send them …. ‘The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive or consider them.’ ” Id. (quoting Lamont v. Postmaster Gen., 381 U.S. 301, 308 (1965)). In the second sense, the First Amendment right to receive information “is a necessary predicate to the recipient’s meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom.” Id. In short, the right to receive information comes from both the sender’s right to provide it and the receiver’s own rights under the First Amendment.

As noted above, the Student Plaintiffs claim a First Amendment right to receive the information and ideas that, but for the viewpoint-based prohibitions of the IFA, university professors would provide during class instruction. Under the IFA’s plain language, those who provide “training or instruction,” such as university professors (or the “senders,” as described in Pico), are restricted from sharing viewpoints contrary to the IFA. See § 1000.05(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“It shall constitute discrimination … to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe any of the following concepts … .”). Aside from the