Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a potential GOP presidential candidate, stepped up his attack Thursday on President Barack Obama's federal health care law with a court filing challenging its cost to states.

Pawlenty and Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri, both Republicans leaving office soon, joined in the federal court filing in Pensacola, Fla.

A judge there ruled last month that parts of a lawsuit filed by 20 other states challenging the health care overhaul can go to trial. The two governors' filing seeks permission to submit a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the lawsuit.

The filing, written by a Washington lawyer from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the governors are safeguarding their citizens from "federal abuse of the spending power." They argue the law places liabilities on states through a Medicaid expansion.

"Although the Act indicates that the federal government will initially pay for some Medicaid expansions, the states are advised that they will pay for 10 percent of some unspecified costs in four years, and there is no indication that the states will not pay more in succeeding periods," the governors' document said.

Pawlenty has been vocal in his opposition to the law. He has said he would make repealing it a focal point of a run for president in 2012 if he wages a campaign. Pawlenty has ordered state agencies to avoid discretionary grants related to the health law.

Two business groups claim that Wisconsin enacted an unconstitutional law that prohibits employers from "conducting mandatory meetings with employees to communicate the employer's opinion about the advantages or disadvantages of joining or supporting a union." The 15-page complaint does not mention any advantages to joining a union.

The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce sued Gov. Jim Doyle and Department of Workforce Development Secretary Roberta Gassman in Federal Court.

Gov. Doyle signed Senate Bill 585 into law in May. The law prohibits employers - and unions and hiring and licensing agencies - from discriminating against anyone for "declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious or political matters."

The business groups claim SB 585 violates the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act and the National Labor Relations Act by failing to allow employers to communicate with their employees. And they say the state exceeded its jurisdiction.

With Craigslist's decision to replace its "adult services" section of its "Services" classifieds with a "Censored" bar that blocks that content, the online powerhouse has once again become a magnet for controversy among those who view the move as a cave-in to limit free speech and to those who accuse the site of facilitating prostitution and possibly a now-dead serial killer's agenda.

In a poll Mashable is conducting about the change, the website asked readers if Craigslist's "adult services" should be censored. So far, 71 percent of more than 1,800 who have responded said no, it shouldn't be censored (although the caveat to that "no" is "because prostitution shouldn't be illegal anyway.")

In its coverage of the possible free-speech ramifications of the decision, the New York Times boiled down the issue: "Just how much responsibility does a Web site have for what is posted by its users, or for potential criminal activity that results from the posts?"

The liability issue has stirred up lots of debate.

"If you impose liability on Craigslist, YouTube and Facebook for anything their users do, then they're not going to take chances," Brian Carver, an attorney and assistant professor at the UC Berkeley school of information, told The San Francisco Chronicle last week in a story about the Aug. 24 demand from attorneys general to Craigslist to shut down the "Adult Services" section. "It would likely result in the takedown of what might otherwise be perfectly legitimate free expression."

Technology Liberation Front blogger Ryan Radia wrote: "While the state attorneys general are likely celebrating victory this holiday weekend, all they’ve really done is to stifle free speech online and complicate efforts by law enforcement authorities to go after the real bad guys — you know, the ones who are forcing kids into sex slavery."

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/06/5055303-craigslists-adult-services-decision-a-blow-to-free-speech-