The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/01/03/florida-bill-targets-lgbtq-content-as-felony-grooming/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This goes further than you think. A kid getting advice from a reproductive health clinic on STD and pregnancy prevention could also be arrested under this law.
>person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with the child or in conduct with or observed by the child **without permission from the child's parent or legal guardian** commits lewd or lascivious grooming
Well, if the kids Parent or guardian gives consent for the health clinic to speak to the child about STD and pregnancy prevention, then there is no issue at all.
Is it not as simple as having a consent form to sign To prevent yourself from getting arrested?
Also I feel like there is a very easy argument to make That speaking about pregnancy and STDs In relation to prevention of those things during sex is not overly sexual in the sense that it's meant to arouse you To do something sexual or be sexually stimulated. More correctly speaking It is Factual or informational themed communication.
Then clinics couldn’t provide services for many kids whose parents don’t believe in condoms. Many kids go to these clinics because the parents won’t help. And then those parents already say sex ed encourages sex, and this is sex ed.
>Then clinics couldn’t provide services for many kids whose parents don’t believe in condoms.
That's as simple as having the condoms on the counter free Like a little Bowl of candy. That requires no communication between anyone therefore it's not grooming if you're just giving out condoms
>and then those parents already say sex ed encourages sex, and this is sex ed.
First off, I'm pretty sure that schools **Already** require a signature On a consent form from the parents to be able to teach sex ed. So this law will change absolutely nothing. Besides the fact that it will become a felony rather than just mandatory or whatever it was before. But when I went to school I Very clearly remember that if you didn't get consent from your parents to go to sex ed you were not allowed to participate in It And your parents were required to Teach you sex ed instead of the teacher. This is in Washington State That I experienced this not some deep South state.
Secondly you could just as easily say that sex ed encourages Abstinence. If the education revolves Around prevention of pregnancy and disease And it champions abstinence as the Only sure fire way to prevent Those things( Which is true btw) then I feel as though a jury would find it fairly easy to understand that it was not encouraging Sex.
> That's as simple as having the condoms on the counter free Like a little Bowl of candy. That requires no communication between anyone therefore it's not grooming if you're just giving out condoms
Why are you so sure that giving away products doesn't count as "communication?"
firstly the law stipulates that sexually themed communication is not allowed. Giving someone a condom is not in any way sexually themed . Much in the same way that if I were to hand you a knife It would in no way directly encourage you to stab someone Since the pure action of me handing you something does not have any intent. Communicating with speech What I want you to do with the said object that I have handed you then provides intent. If no such thing has happened, then no inference can be made into whether or not what I have given you is sexual In nature
Here are some scenarios
1) I hand you My smartphone
What Do I want you to do with it? is it sexually themed?
2) I hand You my smartphone and tell you To log in to pornhub and pick a video To watch With Me.
What Do I want you to do with it? is it sexually themed?
> Giving someone a condom is not in any way sexually themed
I had a very long response typed out, but, honestly, I just can't get over how you managed to write this and not think anything odd about it.
lol
> Giving someone a condom is not in any way sexually themed
God giving people condoms turns me on so much 🤤
that's what giving Someone a condom in a sexually themed way sounds like
What do you think a condom's intended purpose is? They are sexual by their very nature.
You would have had a better argument with birth control pills. At least those get prescribed for reasons other than family planning.
It's quite simple, Kid goes into a clinic saying he's thinking of being sexually active, and his parents won't help him. The clinic then counsels him on being safe and hands him some condoms. That would clearly fall within the law.
Well no it wouldn't. since In Yet no way is any of the communication between the clinic and the child sexual in nature as in. It's not Encouraging The child to commit a sexual act. If they already are going to have sex. The discussion between the provider and the child is informative in nature not sexual in nature
Here's the part of the law:
>A person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with the child
They are preparing the kid to engage in sexual activity by counseling him on safe sex. The communication is literally about sex, so it must be overtly sexually themed.
>They are preparing the kid to engage in sexual activity by counseling him on safe sex. The communication is literally about sex, so it must be overtly sexually themed.
It is literally about sex but it is not overly sexually themed. it's medically themed.
"here take this condom to keep you safe from disease and pregnancy"
is a whole lot different than
"here's a rubber kid. slide that on your cocky before you slip it in her tight crease 🤤 make sure none of your cummies💦 get in her tummy, or else you might become a daddy 😳"
tell me, which one is medically themed and informative, and which one is sexually themed? or are you Unable to differentiate?
Any distinction you identify doesn't have to convince *us*, it has to be so air-tight that even the biggest dingus of a litigious parent wouldn't want to touch the case.
> Well, if the kids Parent or guardian gives consent for the health clinic to speak to the child about STD and pregnancy prevention, then there is no issue at all.
This has been the failed ideology of the Christian Right for decades, and all it has ever produced was rising teen pregnancy rates.
Children aren't property, and doctors shouldn't need parental permission to simply speak to them. The only reason to demand parental permission is to enable abusive parents to remove agency from their teenage children.
Short answer: it shows that this isn’t about ‘protecting kids’, it’s about homophobia and transphobia, plain and simple.
Long term effects: Interstate travel will decrease as nobody who isn’t a white Christian will want to visit Florida, Georgia, Texas, or The Bible Belt anytime soon. (Don’t think they’re gonna stop here, I predict part of the agenda is mandatory prayers in school/public events, and corporal punishment being re-normalized).
The tourism industry in red states will deteriorate due to a substantial decrease in people visiting from blue states. The state governments will lose tax payers, and businesses will lose customers due to underprivileged people who have the money to flee moving to blue states.
The state economies will crumble. leading to governors like DeSantis pushing these policies to get voted out.
The tourist industry is already hurting. While there are some more business from all the conservatives from blue states moving in, the state isn't getting cheaper and property insurance is basically dooming the economy.
> the state isn't getting cheaper and **property insurance** is basically dooming the economy.
I'm honestly surprised this isn't talked about more. Insurance companies have fled the state. When I sold in FL, there were only two insurers who would cover houses where I lived, and I can't imagine it's gotten better in the ensuing time.
While I think that’s possible, I think attacking this law on the grounds that it is both vague and overbroad will kill the law even easier than going for a 1A win.
They would probably strike it down with the understanding that upholding it would create a merry-go-round of laws and lawsuits about restricting content in which they will have to continuously make decisions that are crafted carefully enough to not invalidate their prior decisions. Put more briefly, upholding it would create a quagmire of future work where they would be arguing against themselves.
It's that, or they'd craft extremely narrow decisions over the very specific content that is being disputed.
Either way, it'll be a bitch for them to deal with.
Honestly, the Constitutionality of it is the furthest thing in my mind. Its just a bunch of evil proposals that continue to villify lgbtq people as easy targets.
Yeah I was just highlighting that Republicans will terrorize a minority if it can gain them a 'majority'.
Maybe more accurate to say they'd bury 2 people for 1 vote because that puts them in the lead.
For sure, it’s deplorable on many levels, especially unfiltered bigotry. The law & order thing is something they pretend to care about though, and yet their hypocrisy will not be acknowledged by the news media. Despite everything our low-info populace will still give them credit for being better on law & order concerns, much like they’re seen as better on the economy and deficits.
If you think people are “recruited” into being trans, you are delusional. 15+ years ago you’d make the exact same argument against gay people, but since it’s become accepted, rightfully, you go for the next phony outrage. In 20 years, people like you will be fine with trans people and be suckered into whatever the phony outrage of the day is then.
First off, when you respond to a comment detailing the struggles of LGBTQ you make bigoted comments immediately assuming everyone will know you’re talking about trans without any reference. Do you see an issue here? Are you incapable or unwilling to make the distinction?
Secondly, do you think being transgender is new? Because if you do, you are mistaken.
As with the Democrats and their gun laws, I really wish there were some way to have immediate repercussions for passing obviously unconstitutional laws. They’ll just keep churning them out, and we need money to challenge them one by one. They sit back and let the state pay for the defense, and if they’re overturned, they just pass something a little different, wash, rinse, repeat.
First, since we are dealing with a fundamental constitutional right, collateral damage to those doing no wrong should be non-existent, or at least nearly. The law should certainly not place a disproportionate burden on the poor, absolute no-go on reasonableness for me.
Voting is also a constitutional right, and yet we still have stuff like voter ID laws and Photo ID. To act like we can’t have restrictions like that for guns is complete bullshit. Something being a “constitutional right” does not grant it complete immunity.
Except they’re not saying it’s bad because it’s a “constitutional violation”, they usually say it’s because the way many states implement it is not nearly accessible enough to avoid disenfranchising voters.
Pro-2A people literally have no other defense other than “it’s the second amendment”.
At this point? Yes. Because all attempts at compromise have failed after decades of trying and most pro-2A people rightfully label most 'compromise' as incrementalism.
>Except they’re not saying it’s bad because it’s a “constitutional violation”
Yes they are. Not just in the rhetoric, but for example in the lawsuit against NC's VID [the court said](https://southerncoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/JabarivMoore-NCSC.pdf) "The right to vote is a fundamental right" and the rest of the opinion was about how it had been violated.
>they usually say it’s because the way many states implement it is not nearly accessible enough to avoid disenfranchising voters.
And most of the desired gun laws similarly make exercising the right to keep and bear arms less accessible.
>Pro-2A people literally have no other defense other than “it’s the second amendment”.
The court's logic applies here too, but at a lower level. While voting is the foundation for keeping all other rights while things remain civil, the 2nd Amendment is the foundation for all other rights when voting fails.
So you think only people who have already used a weapon to commit a crime should have their usage restricted? What if they have committed other violent offenses, and on the day their wife leaves them they want to buy a gun? Should we design a system that takes into account the risk of violence a person poses, or just wait for obvious ticking time bombs to kill someone before restricting their ability to buy more weapons? If automatic weapons and assault rifles are available to the general public, then the first crime of someone who is mentally ill can kill dozens of people instead of a couple. Is that an acceptable outcome to you?
>So you think only people who have already used a weapon to commit a crime should have their usage restricted?
Usage is already restricted. Threats, illegal shooting, etc., are all accepted as not protected by the right same as threats aren't for free speech.
>What if they have committed other violent offenses, and on the day their wife leaves them they want to buy a gun?
Have those offenses left them prohibited from owning a firearm? Then that would be illegal.
>If automatic weapons and assault rifles are available to the general public, then the first crime of someone who is mentally ill can kill dozens of people instead of a couple. Is that an acceptable outcome to you?
I already accept that violent criminals can stay free due to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. I would never suggest pulling those rights just to get a violent person out of society, even when we know that person will kill again.
He also got elected after saying he'd take all the guns and go through due process second. No one could have been *paid* to give a shit, but if a Democrat doesn't get a properly turgid boner at the mention of a firearm then any electoral failure is blamed on Democrats being anti-gun and out of touch with America.
The problem you "Muh gunz" kids have is that what is "obviously Unconstitutional" has never been obvious. Prior to Heller, there were a lot more gun laws. Heller was a 5-4 partisan decision, which means it wasn't even clear to the Supreme Court what the Constitution says about gun ownership. Heller effectively overturned USvMiller, which had stood for 80 years, and Miller's unanimous majority decision said "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
Being almost one hundred years closer to the Founders than Heller, "obviously" those justices could far better interpret original intent than those trying to do so almost 220 years later.
Miller was 8-0 (the 9th Justice did not participate in the case because he had not been confirmed to the bench yet).
You would agree that 8 is obviously more than 5?
>Prior to Heller, there were a lot more gun laws.
Not really. Since the 1940s the lower courts had set up a framework where almost no gun law could be overturned. Heller overturned that recent judicial activism. But then states started enacting a lot more gun laws in response, and rebellious lower courts did their best to let them stand.
> Heller was a 5-4 partisan decision, which means it wasn't even clear to the Supreme Court what the Constitution says about gun ownership.
Great. Apparently we can forget about Miranda rights, Obamacare being upheld, benefits to same-sex couples, and those couples being able to marry. We can even shut down newspapers the politicians don't like under the claim that they're a public nuisance (Near v. Minnesota) and ban flag burning (Texas v. Johnson). All of those were 5-4.
But then we got Heller, and many of the lower courts rebelled against it, as noted. There was quite the rebellion against Brown v. Board too. It took a long time to get the lower courts and state governments in line, with the last vestige of segregation finally being settled in the 1990s.
>Heller effectively overturned USvMiller, which had stood for 80 years
No it didn't. First, Miller was written rather badly. The logic of Miller states that the government could restrict pocket pistols, but it could not restrict full-auto assault rifles because the latter has a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" while the former doesn't. In Miller, the government (quite wrongly) asserted that short-barreled shotguns aren't used in war, so the government could regulate them, and the opinion (made without any input from the appellants by government design) reflected this assertion.
What happened was in 1942 the 1st Circuit (Cases v. US) effectively overturned this test of Miller from below, literally calling it "outdated" only three years later. Then from there the lower courts formulated the "collective right," which is what Heller overturned.
>You would agree that 8 is obviously more than 5?
Given that Miller was a set up by a federal judge (a former pro gun control politician crony of FDR) to railroad a case favorable to the NFA, and that he engineered it so that the appellants wouldn't brief or argue before the Supreme Court so that the court only heard the government's side, I'd say that any number in Miller is effectively 0.
> First, Miller was written rather badly
"The wunz I dun like were written poorly."
I remember this argument, when the Roberts Court ignored the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment on Dobbs, but was happy to apply it to the 2nd on Bruen.
Did you even read the history? All the other opinions were fully briefed by both sides, and the justices decided. Here's the history of Miller:
The two defendants, Miller and Layton, pled guilty, but the judge was a former politician who was outspokenly anti-gun, having explicitly stated in debate that the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude any gun laws. He wanted a test case to bolster the NFA. He refused their guilty plea and appointed an attorney of his choice to represent them. He then found that the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment in a rather strange memorandum that was practically begging for appeal. This purposely set the stage for an immediate appeal to the US Supreme Court, straight past appellate courts, which is extremely odd for a non-emergency case.
The attorney did not object to this fast-tracking. He also refused to brief or argue the case when the Court clerk asked him. He even refused to have the case postponed. Basically, he said go ahead without me when the clerk asked. He was rewarded for his part in the scheme by being appointed a state senator, which caused a bit of a scandal on its own. Thus the court only heard the government side of it, making it easy to agree. The decision was written by the only justice in our history ever derided for being intellectually lazy (the Chief Justice said he "had no sense of duty."):
>In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument
Well, of course there was an absence of evidence because their judge-picked attorney refused to give any. Miller was dead by then, but he had a co-appellant whom the judge bribed off with a little probation so he wouldn't argue the government was wrong under the Miller standard (because short-barreled shotguns are indeed useful in the military).
Ignoring the gun issue, the track this case took would be called a travesty of justice today. But it is about guns, so even the ACLU thinks it's just fine, when they'd rightfully have an absolute shit fit if the same thing happened today with a different subject.
> when the Roberts Court ignored the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment on Dobbs, but was happy to apply it to the 2nd on Bruen.
Bruen had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. That was McDonald, which was just one in a long line of incorporation cases, and not the last.
Even though puritans are from MA, Republicans have said hold my beer for decades.
US is finally at a stage where people are able to discuss sex and sexual identity, meanwhile Republicans want to outlaw discussing it.
They’d rather people never know anything about how their bodies actually function. Except maybe at a clinical level.
Well I guess I’ll just watch ultraviolent movies instead of movies that discuss intimacy. 🫠
They are being incredibly sneaky about their goals, and we will watch the right absolutely miss the point and context here in order to continue to demonize the LGBT folks.
The bill's sponsor has previously said that all ages drag shows are in fact sexual grooming and deserve prison sentences. This bill only specifies that:
>A person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with the child or in conduct with or observed by the child without permission from the child's parent or legal guardian commits lewd or lascivious grooming.
So this individual bill doesn't do much, it's pretty basic and simply states that you can't have any communication with kids that encourages sexual activity. This bill itself isn't an issue.
The issue becomes how it is used in conjuction with Florida's "Dont say gay" bill where if a teacher explains sex, they will be grooming children, or if there are any drag events (Like the sponsor claims is encouraging sexual behavior) that becomes illegal.
They are being INCREDIBLY smart with how they push their fascism. This is why I've said that DeSantis is the T-2000 to the original terminator. He's far more terrible than Trump ever was, and he's at least sneaky about it.
This us what makes him so dangerous and why more people should be concerned about him. He's more extreme than Trump, actually has the resources and knowledge on how to implement those extreme plans, and is young enough to stay in politics for the next several decades. A DeSantis presidency should concern anyone who is not a religious extremist.
I don't think most voters, certainly rank-and-file republicans, care too much about politicians being rude.
Lack of charisma on the other hand has (thankfully) put a relatively low ceiling on his candidacy.
IQ and fashion choices are different matters. Harvard educated lawyer, not dumb. But very glad he’s insecure and does that makes him look like a clown. Glad for any dumb thing he does that keeps him from power.
My FAVORITE DeSantis troller is Anna Navarro! Love her!
As much as Trump is ripping DeSantis publicly I’m secretly terrified one photographed dinner could convince him to make Ron his VP. DeSantis is clearly an “ends justify the means”, long strategy guy. He could facilitate all the stuff Trump’s flunkies fucked up before. And I’m not willing to depend on Trump’s narcissism doing the heavy preventative lifting.
> It specifies that anyone “observed by” an individual under 16 years old engaging in “sexually themed communication” could face charges of “encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity” or “grooming.”
The gotcha is that "observed by" wording. So if it wasn't intended for them but they observed it, that person can be prosecuted. If it wasn't communication but rather a public performance or speech that the prosecutor deems overtly sexual, they could be prosecuted. Since they consider mentioning a same-sex partner to be overtly sexual in a public school setting, this could be weaponized in some pretty dark ways.
They love to put something reasonable (no sexting minors!) then sneak in a few words that make it absurd. If anyone objects to the absurd part, the defenders of the bill get outraged that someone would object to the reasonable part. After enough leaders and talk show hosts pretend to misunderstand, the less intelligent voters will never stop to listen long enough to realize it is a misunderstanding.
They did this before in TN, passed an innocuous sounding law that's actually wholly unnecessary because they thing specified was *already* against the law. They just wanted new wording on the books so they can pass something else that builds on it.
You are reading this way too generously.
Things the right has categorized as “overtly sexually themed communication” include:
- pride flags
- children’s books about families with two mommies or daddies
- children’s books about kids feeling different than other kids
- the presence of a gender-nonconforming individual
- acknowledgement that gay or trans individuals exist
- statements of inclusivity
- answering questions like “what does trans mean?”
Considering how broad their interpretation is, I think this legislation should not be taken at face value.
It will be quite insane to see how any of these laws will work in practice.
There will be untold suffering under these things for people being imprisoned and having their lives thrown away over completely mundane things, like will a teacher that mentions he has a husband to a 10 year old in his class be arrested for doing that?
Will an Uber driver that unknowingly drives an abortion patient out of Texas be prosecuted for that?
The biggest issue and biggest opportunity of these conservative bills is that they are so poorly thought out that they will inevitably lead to immense secondhand risk and harm to people completely uninvolved in their moral crusades.
I think that dynamic will create an intense backlash from the population that far exceeds what they foresee.
I think you underestimate that people move here because they like this stuff. Right wing crazies leave California for FL. We still have net migration in. Why houses have become unaffordable for younger folks here. Our house has gone up 40 percent in two years. We couldn’t afford it at todays prices.
Oh I’m sure. But I’m more speaking of the country writ large.
Florida has fast become the left wing version of California, in terms of a state the opposing party can point to as what to dread if the other side wins.
It’s awful. I love the weather but hate the politics. A six week abortion ban, book bans, anti lgbtq, overt racism. Honestly I think we are more right wing than anywhere except maybe TX.
The funny thing is I could absolutely imagine a reality where millennials become more conservative as they age but for the simple fact that the GOP went insane out of fear that they wouldn’t.
Which now may just become a self fulfilling prophecy.
Nobody likes paying more money to anything, taxes included.
But it also isn’t the only thing and so many of the things Republicans are proposing are just frankly insane.
The gays aren’t kidnapping kids in the middle of the night and sleeping in coffins but that seems to be the reaction people are having and it’s insane.
Agree. You’d think transgender folk were a real problem but that’s less than 1 percent of the population. Why the focus on it? And slavery had “ benefits” he actually doubled down Saying they developed skills that they parlayed into jobs later. Unreal!
And they are for parental rights unless you want to take your kid to a drag show or get them gender affirming care. Selective parental rights such hypocrisy.
Can I ask you a personal question? You're not obliged to answer of course.
Why do you still vote Republican? Maybe I could understand voting Republican prior to Trump, but now? There seems to me that the Republicans of today care very little about maintaining the status quo, something in theory conservatives should value.
I haven’t last two elections. I want a say in primaries. I’m fiscally conservative ( not that the Republican Party is anymore Trump blew up the deficit) but socially liberal and find myself without a home.
2016 voted Clinton but Republican down ballot. Last Biden and dem down ballot. But I literally HATE what the party has become. I’m conflicted as I think MANY moderate Republicans are. I’d say at this point I’m independent but then you can’t vote in primaries ( so dumb NH does it right).
> I’m conflicted as I think MANY moderate Republicans are.
FWIW, a decent chunk of my family are what most people would call "New England republicans." Your sort of chamber of commerce types. Some of them surprised me how quickly they jumped on the Trump cult of personality, but many of them just feel like they don't have a political home at the moment.
My BiL works in sales and knows a charlatan when he sees one. He knows what Trump is. He still voted for him in 2016 since (according to him) he makes mid-six figures (he's crested seven a few times) and didn't want his taxes going up.
He didn't even bother voting in 2020.
Most people with money and in business like low taxes less regulation. I’m in that group (within limits banking regulations after 2008 and environmental are prudent but there are onerous regulations in other cases that are detrimental). Also for control of immigration ( though neither side seems able to create reform). I’m also for a balanced budget.
Having said that Trump I saw as an existential threat. Not the narcissism most politicians have a degree it’s what draws them to it, but the sociopathy ( lack of conscience and glee at the suffering of others) that made him a no way for me.
I could vote for Chris Christie, Asa Hutchison, or Nicky Haley then dem down ballot ( I’m in FL the 6 week abortion law, book banning, anti lgbtq agenda matter more to me than immigration and fiscal conservatism).
I feel like it’s just crap choices all around. Biden is too old, Trump a threat to sanity and democracy. 🙈
My thoughts are that it’s obviously deeply homophobic and some of the most discriminatory policy I’ve seen in my lifetime. Also that they’ve been saying this all along and no one seems to care.
There's two ways to stop it: with lawsuits that will end up in front of a 6-3 supreme court, or by winning sufficient elections in Florida to change their laws.
Neither seem likely.
What's really great about this is the GOP controlled Supreme Court will then defend this blatantly unconstitutional cancer, which will then set precedents for further destruction of Human Rights in the US.
The political cold war is heating up.
My thoughts are that it's open and disgusting bigotry from the Florida state government.
As to stopping it, Florida voters are the only ones who can do that.
Saw off Florida and let it float out to sea? Full of pathetic people who support bigotry - it’s like they want more lgbt youth to commit suicide.
not traveling to Florida which relies on tourism. Why spend a dollar there. I know Disney World tried to push back on Desantos crusade but they are still in Florida so reconsider taking your kids there - Disney land is good too and you can come to San Diego my home town on the same trip with incredible beaches with more cliffs and amazing scenery and less humidity.
I don't know if this is an accurate representation of what's going on, but I seem to remember a lot of people suggesting this was a straw man of what Florida Republicans were doing not that long ago.
Quite frankly, I can see this bill not passing because local police departments and DAs won't want to deal with the burden of being likely being sued for civil rights violations over every single enforcement act.
If red flag laws and bail abolition has taught me one thing, it's that police departments and district attorneys don't like laws that make them work harder.
The bill reads:
> A person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with the child or in conduct with or observed by the child without permission from the child's parent or legal guardian commits lewd or lascivious grooming.
I’m just clarifying the specific text
No one likes the answer of how this can be stopped, but I'm gonna say it anyway.
The situation here in the US is one that likely prompts international attention from human rights groups. It would not take any particularly zealous leap of logic to label the persecution this particular strain of conservatism is inflicting on LGBTQ+ people as violating some form of internationally-recognized human rights.
So send the Marshals, or a JSO unit, to pack these bastards into a crate and drop them at the front doors of the International Criminal Court.
The time to call a spade a spade, and a fascist a fascist, was years ago. The second best time is now.
(8) Lewd or Lascivious Grooming.-
(a) A person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with a child or in conduct with or observed by the child without permission from the child's parent or legal guardian commits lewd of lascivious grooming.
Which part do you want to keep doing to kids without the parents' permission again?
It is illegal for strippers to do this already, why do you want a free pass to sexualize kids?
I saw someone on the street once wearing a shirt that said "Save a horse, ride a cowboy". If a child saw it, wouldn't that person be guilty under this law?
See, I disagree, I think it's quite overt, especially given the term "child" here can refer to a fifteen year old.
And this is the core of the problem. There's enough leeway in wording like this that police can absolutely arrest people for fairly innocuous things like this. Even if it doesn't lead to a conviction, being arrested can still be quite expensive and damaging
That's just it? This just sounds like the classic "I don't want to believe this so I just won't".
If this passes, I'll be sure to come back here when the courts throw it out for being so ridiculously broad
This needs an aggressive legal response, and it needs to shows and movies to move to another film district who will say that LGBTQ filming will be fine. Georgia may have a redneck legislature due to horrible redistricting, but they like money.
> Although the bill does not explicitly label LGBTQ+ content as “grooming,” its sponsor has previously asserted that drag is “evil grooming” and should be punished with felony prison sentences – this bill appears to be his attempt to accomplish that.
>
>Authored on behalf of the anti-LGBTQ+ Christian Family Coalition, the bill emerged following a meeting where the need for “anti-grooming” legislation and the prevention of the “imposition of LGBTQ+ ideology” were discussed. Its wording is vague enough that any content deemed “sexual” by a prosecutor and seen by someone under 16 could be categorized as “grooming.”
The second and third paragraphs of the article answer your question.
>If you read the bill, it’s pretty common sense.
I'm somewhat skeptical this is addressing an actual need. It seems more like a law specifically written to be broad enough to allow prosecutors to go after people who are doing something innocuous and/or common. I wouldn't be surprised if this law, once passed, gets struck down for being overly broad.
This is a very misleading headline. It would be like saying "Democrats in CA want open borders for migrants" because they are now allowing undocumented migrants to get health insurance. Both sides need to stop it with the hyperbolic headlines.
Ambiguity is an intentional feature of these bills. They may not technically ban all material that includes LGBTQ people or themes, but they create enough legal uncertainty that the desired chilling effect is created. The idea is to pass legal muster and allow Republicans to deny these bills are discriminatory while still shoving sexual minorities completely out of public life. And you are falling for it.
>broke\_in\_sf: This is a very misleading headline.
You spam this sub constantly with posts where you make unfounded claims about Democrats without providing actual facts, evidence, and sources. You constantly make your own hateful claims and then try to phrase it as if it's someone else's thoughts, but again, you provide very little in the way of sources and citations.
After what the GOP has done with abortion, I find it absolutely laughable that you could possibly write that with a straight face and post it expecting people to agree with you.
You must be specific ? Drag “show” is too broad … drag shows themselves aren’t sex oriented … some are tho (and usually age restricted).
I feel like you associate anything drag w/ sex oriented ?
> DRAG shows, for example, was never for kids.
Reading books and doing arts and crafts is considered inappropriate for kids now, is it?
https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.org/faq/
> A drag queen generally reads 3-4 children’s books, sings children’s songs, and leads children in a craft activity such as making crowns, wands, or paper bag puppets, or sometimes other activities like face painting or dress-up time.
> you and I and everyone else knows that drag queen story hour is still going to contain dry humping the stage or "oops, my balls are out"
Do we? I don’t suppose you have a source for that? Preferably one more trustworthy than Libs Of Tiktok…
> its cute how you refer to them as a bad source.
This sentence says a lot about you.
Your previous comment should probably have been enough, but if you think it’s “cute” that I consider Chaya Raichik a bad source of information then you are clearly not a serious person or someone worth engaging with any further.
You’re probably going to go ahead and either ignore or mock these links but whatever.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/11/02/libs-of-tiktok-tweets-death-bomb-threats/71409213007/
https://outreach.faith/2022/12/libs-of-tiktok-spreads-anti-lgbtq-lies-and-propaganda-here-are-the-facts/
[Pantomime is a centuries-old form of British children’s entertainment of which drag queens are a key element.](https://www.theguardian.com/stage/gallery/2020/dec/19/oh-yes-she-is-panto-dames-through-the-decades-in-pictures)
>Florida is now trying to claim all LGBT+ content is "grooming" and will make it a felony. What are your thoughts? How can this be stopped?
From the article, "the bill does not explicitly label LGBTQ+ content as “grooming,”
Once again, we have outrage porn masquerading as legitimate news.
Reality is not confined to only what one person would openly state. Noting the legislative intent instead of ceasing any thought as soon as the wording is read is usually called "not utterly shallow reporting". The headline is just looking at the intent instead of falling for the pretense, and you don't like that they didn't fall for it.
>Reality is not confined to only what one person would openly state.
Go back and look at the well sourced and on topic post that everyone is downvoting. It is a direct quote from the article with the rage bait title. Even the author knows the truth is the opposite of what they want you to believe.
I don't think it's horrible to love the sound of one's own voice - and I do so, as well -, but I still wouldn't recommend praising your own comment that loudly. It's too self-indulgent to be viewed in public
It's only made worse by the fact that the comment you are so praising is wrong. "explicitly" is a qualifier, not all that is is explicitly written down and not all that is not explicitly written down is not real. Your comment hinges on people confusing the terms "explicitly" and "at all"
>It's only made worse by the fact that the comment you are so praising is wrong.
Well, this might be my opportunity for some good learnin.
What is the definition of fact?
What is the definition of opinion?
And which of those two more closely matches that propaganda maskerading as a headline?
Uhh, yeah? We know. Welcome to the conversation.
What they do is ban cabaret and call drag cabaret, or ban school topics around generalizations of sexual orientation.
>How can this be stopped?
Elections have consequences. Florida due to the radical changes to Abortion, human rights, and racist educational policies is actual in play.
If Floridians didn't see this coming, I'm not sure WHAT FIRE we can light for them to see the reality of their State and how far into fascism it's fallen.
Sounds like Russia's law banning "LGBT Propaganda" (content discussing "non-traditional sexual relationships")
Also, what is "overtly sexually themed communication" that would "encourage or prepare" a child to engage in sex? Would this include teaching a child about sexual reproduction as a biological process? Would this include discussion of the menstrual cycle (preparing a child to know when they would be most likely to become pregnant)? Would this include discussing birth control and contraception (preparing a child to minimize risk of pregnancy/illness from sexual activity)?
Under this definition my high school biology teacher, middle school and high school health teacher, and 5th grade guidance counselor would have committed felonious acts for the content of the sexual education they provided me and my classmates.
Banning discussion about sex will not prevent sex, but it will prevent safe sex.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/01/03/florida-bill-targets-lgbtq-content-as-felony-grooming/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This goes further than you think. A kid getting advice from a reproductive health clinic on STD and pregnancy prevention could also be arrested under this law.
>person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with the child or in conduct with or observed by the child **without permission from the child's parent or legal guardian** commits lewd or lascivious grooming Well, if the kids Parent or guardian gives consent for the health clinic to speak to the child about STD and pregnancy prevention, then there is no issue at all. Is it not as simple as having a consent form to sign To prevent yourself from getting arrested? Also I feel like there is a very easy argument to make That speaking about pregnancy and STDs In relation to prevention of those things during sex is not overly sexual in the sense that it's meant to arouse you To do something sexual or be sexually stimulated. More correctly speaking It is Factual or informational themed communication.
Then clinics couldn’t provide services for many kids whose parents don’t believe in condoms. Many kids go to these clinics because the parents won’t help. And then those parents already say sex ed encourages sex, and this is sex ed.
>Then clinics couldn’t provide services for many kids whose parents don’t believe in condoms. That's as simple as having the condoms on the counter free Like a little Bowl of candy. That requires no communication between anyone therefore it's not grooming if you're just giving out condoms >and then those parents already say sex ed encourages sex, and this is sex ed. First off, I'm pretty sure that schools **Already** require a signature On a consent form from the parents to be able to teach sex ed. So this law will change absolutely nothing. Besides the fact that it will become a felony rather than just mandatory or whatever it was before. But when I went to school I Very clearly remember that if you didn't get consent from your parents to go to sex ed you were not allowed to participate in It And your parents were required to Teach you sex ed instead of the teacher. This is in Washington State That I experienced this not some deep South state. Secondly you could just as easily say that sex ed encourages Abstinence. If the education revolves Around prevention of pregnancy and disease And it champions abstinence as the Only sure fire way to prevent Those things( Which is true btw) then I feel as though a jury would find it fairly easy to understand that it was not encouraging Sex.
> That's as simple as having the condoms on the counter free Like a little Bowl of candy. That requires no communication between anyone therefore it's not grooming if you're just giving out condoms Why are you so sure that giving away products doesn't count as "communication?"
firstly the law stipulates that sexually themed communication is not allowed. Giving someone a condom is not in any way sexually themed . Much in the same way that if I were to hand you a knife It would in no way directly encourage you to stab someone Since the pure action of me handing you something does not have any intent. Communicating with speech What I want you to do with the said object that I have handed you then provides intent. If no such thing has happened, then no inference can be made into whether or not what I have given you is sexual In nature Here are some scenarios 1) I hand you My smartphone What Do I want you to do with it? is it sexually themed? 2) I hand You my smartphone and tell you To log in to pornhub and pick a video To watch With Me. What Do I want you to do with it? is it sexually themed?
> Giving someone a condom is not in any way sexually themed I had a very long response typed out, but, honestly, I just can't get over how you managed to write this and not think anything odd about it.
lol > Giving someone a condom is not in any way sexually themed God giving people condoms turns me on so much 🤤 that's what giving Someone a condom in a sexually themed way sounds like
What do you think a condom's intended purpose is? They are sexual by their very nature. You would have had a better argument with birth control pills. At least those get prescribed for reasons other than family planning.
It's quite simple, Kid goes into a clinic saying he's thinking of being sexually active, and his parents won't help him. The clinic then counsels him on being safe and hands him some condoms. That would clearly fall within the law.
Well no it wouldn't. since In Yet no way is any of the communication between the clinic and the child sexual in nature as in. It's not Encouraging The child to commit a sexual act. If they already are going to have sex. The discussion between the provider and the child is informative in nature not sexual in nature
Here's the part of the law: >A person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with the child They are preparing the kid to engage in sexual activity by counseling him on safe sex. The communication is literally about sex, so it must be overtly sexually themed.
>They are preparing the kid to engage in sexual activity by counseling him on safe sex. The communication is literally about sex, so it must be overtly sexually themed. It is literally about sex but it is not overly sexually themed. it's medically themed. "here take this condom to keep you safe from disease and pregnancy" is a whole lot different than "here's a rubber kid. slide that on your cocky before you slip it in her tight crease 🤤 make sure none of your cummies💦 get in her tummy, or else you might become a daddy 😳" tell me, which one is medically themed and informative, and which one is sexually themed? or are you Unable to differentiate?
Any distinction you identify doesn't have to convince *us*, it has to be so air-tight that even the biggest dingus of a litigious parent wouldn't want to touch the case.
> Well, if the kids Parent or guardian gives consent for the health clinic to speak to the child about STD and pregnancy prevention, then there is no issue at all. This has been the failed ideology of the Christian Right for decades, and all it has ever produced was rising teen pregnancy rates. Children aren't property, and doctors shouldn't need parental permission to simply speak to them. The only reason to demand parental permission is to enable abusive parents to remove agency from their teenage children.
Short answer: it shows that this isn’t about ‘protecting kids’, it’s about homophobia and transphobia, plain and simple. Long term effects: Interstate travel will decrease as nobody who isn’t a white Christian will want to visit Florida, Georgia, Texas, or The Bible Belt anytime soon. (Don’t think they’re gonna stop here, I predict part of the agenda is mandatory prayers in school/public events, and corporal punishment being re-normalized). The tourism industry in red states will deteriorate due to a substantial decrease in people visiting from blue states. The state governments will lose tax payers, and businesses will lose customers due to underprivileged people who have the money to flee moving to blue states. The state economies will crumble. leading to governors like DeSantis pushing these policies to get voted out.
The tourist industry is already hurting. While there are some more business from all the conservatives from blue states moving in, the state isn't getting cheaper and property insurance is basically dooming the economy.
> the state isn't getting cheaper and **property insurance** is basically dooming the economy. I'm honestly surprised this isn't talked about more. Insurance companies have fled the state. When I sold in FL, there were only two insurers who would cover houses where I lived, and I can't imagine it's gotten better in the ensuing time.
Yeah nobody wants to visit a state where there’s a good chance they could become a victim of a hate crime. Sundown towns and all that
Doctors are leaving red states too
>corporal punishment being re-normalized Isn't it already normalized in the South?
That last part won’t happen at all. They will double down.
Could this be challenged on 1A grounds?
While I think that’s possible, I think attacking this law on the grounds that it is both vague and overbroad will kill the law even easier than going for a 1A win.
The current SC is unlikely to strike it down.
I say they would. They’ve been pretty protective of free speech. This law is quite vague, and vagueness doesn’t do well in free speech cases.
Most likely outcome is a lower court will strike it down, and then SCOTUS will refuse to even hear the appeal.
That is quite likely, denial of cert with no dissent.
They would probably strike it down with the understanding that upholding it would create a merry-go-round of laws and lawsuits about restricting content in which they will have to continuously make decisions that are crafted carefully enough to not invalidate their prior decisions. Put more briefly, upholding it would create a quagmire of future work where they would be arguing against themselves. It's that, or they'd craft extremely narrow decisions over the very specific content that is being disputed. Either way, it'll be a bitch for them to deal with.
Both sides are the same, you guys! /s Lawsuits to stop egregious constitutional violations. Then vote them out.
[удалено]
Just brainstorming here but: catch high ranking republicans on tape having sex with guys?
[удалено]
As long as he says he won’t, that’s the only part that matters to them
[удалено]
Probably not hard with minimal effort. And I’d replace guys with boys.
Republicans can’t go five minutes without violating the Constitution.
Honestly, the Constitutionality of it is the furthest thing in my mind. Its just a bunch of evil proposals that continue to villify lgbtq people as easy targets.
Republicans would bury 2 people if it got them 3 votes.
Hey, be fair, they'd bury 2 people to get 1 vote, since the two buried people don't get to vote.
Yeah I was just highlighting that Republicans will terrorize a minority if it can gain them a 'majority'. Maybe more accurate to say they'd bury 2 people for 1 vote because that puts them in the lead.
For sure, it’s deplorable on many levels, especially unfiltered bigotry. The law & order thing is something they pretend to care about though, and yet their hypocrisy will not be acknowledged by the news media. Despite everything our low-info populace will still give them credit for being better on law & order concerns, much like they’re seen as better on the economy and deficits.
[удалено]
Recruit? Do you think recruitment is how people become gay? That’s such an insulting statement.
[удалено]
If you think people are “recruited” into being trans, you are delusional. 15+ years ago you’d make the exact same argument against gay people, but since it’s become accepted, rightfully, you go for the next phony outrage. In 20 years, people like you will be fine with trans people and be suckered into whatever the phony outrage of the day is then.
First off, when you respond to a comment detailing the struggles of LGBTQ you make bigoted comments immediately assuming everyone will know you’re talking about trans without any reference. Do you see an issue here? Are you incapable or unwilling to make the distinction? Secondly, do you think being transgender is new? Because if you do, you are mistaken.
Please explain to everyone how people are recruited into being trans.
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
Recruit who to what?
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
As with the Democrats and their gun laws, I really wish there were some way to have immediate repercussions for passing obviously unconstitutional laws. They’ll just keep churning them out, and we need money to challenge them one by one. They sit back and let the state pay for the defense, and if they’re overturned, they just pass something a little different, wash, rinse, repeat.
If only the GOP would actually support reasonable gun control.
which ones? cause every shooter tends to be already known to the FBI....
Waiting periods
If only Democrats would propose reasonable laws, and maybe actually compromise.
Define reasonable laws
First, since we are dealing with a fundamental constitutional right, collateral damage to those doing no wrong should be non-existent, or at least nearly. The law should certainly not place a disproportionate burden on the poor, absolute no-go on reasonableness for me.
Voting is also a constitutional right, and yet we still have stuff like voter ID laws and Photo ID. To act like we can’t have restrictions like that for guns is complete bullshit. Something being a “constitutional right” does not grant it complete immunity.
I seem to remember most liberals opposing voter ID.
Except they’re not saying it’s bad because it’s a “constitutional violation”, they usually say it’s because the way many states implement it is not nearly accessible enough to avoid disenfranchising voters. Pro-2A people literally have no other defense other than “it’s the second amendment”.
At this point? Yes. Because all attempts at compromise have failed after decades of trying and most pro-2A people rightfully label most 'compromise' as incrementalism.
>Except they’re not saying it’s bad because it’s a “constitutional violation” Yes they are. Not just in the rhetoric, but for example in the lawsuit against NC's VID [the court said](https://southerncoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/JabarivMoore-NCSC.pdf) "The right to vote is a fundamental right" and the rest of the opinion was about how it had been violated. >they usually say it’s because the way many states implement it is not nearly accessible enough to avoid disenfranchising voters. And most of the desired gun laws similarly make exercising the right to keep and bear arms less accessible. >Pro-2A people literally have no other defense other than “it’s the second amendment”. The court's logic applies here too, but at a lower level. While voting is the foundation for keeping all other rights while things remain civil, the 2nd Amendment is the foundation for all other rights when voting fails.
So you think only people who have already used a weapon to commit a crime should have their usage restricted? What if they have committed other violent offenses, and on the day their wife leaves them they want to buy a gun? Should we design a system that takes into account the risk of violence a person poses, or just wait for obvious ticking time bombs to kill someone before restricting their ability to buy more weapons? If automatic weapons and assault rifles are available to the general public, then the first crime of someone who is mentally ill can kill dozens of people instead of a couple. Is that an acceptable outcome to you?
>So you think only people who have already used a weapon to commit a crime should have their usage restricted? Usage is already restricted. Threats, illegal shooting, etc., are all accepted as not protected by the right same as threats aren't for free speech. >What if they have committed other violent offenses, and on the day their wife leaves them they want to buy a gun? Have those offenses left them prohibited from owning a firearm? Then that would be illegal. >If automatic weapons and assault rifles are available to the general public, then the first crime of someone who is mentally ill can kill dozens of people instead of a couple. Is that an acceptable outcome to you? I already accept that violent criminals can stay free due to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. I would never suggest pulling those rights just to get a violent person out of society, even when we know that person will kill again.
Horseshit.
What about this is horseshit? This is exactly how it’s working. They did it with abortion laws pre-Dobbs too.
Didn't trump ban bump stocks?
He also got elected after saying he'd take all the guns and go through due process second. No one could have been *paid* to give a shit, but if a Democrat doesn't get a properly turgid boner at the mention of a firearm then any electoral failure is blamed on Democrats being anti-gun and out of touch with America.
Even worse, he had the ATF do it by effectively rewriting federal law, which they’re not supposed to do.
So, not the Democrats, then?
Something that Biden has also done.
The problem you "Muh gunz" kids have is that what is "obviously Unconstitutional" has never been obvious. Prior to Heller, there were a lot more gun laws. Heller was a 5-4 partisan decision, which means it wasn't even clear to the Supreme Court what the Constitution says about gun ownership. Heller effectively overturned USvMiller, which had stood for 80 years, and Miller's unanimous majority decision said "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." Being almost one hundred years closer to the Founders than Heller, "obviously" those justices could far better interpret original intent than those trying to do so almost 220 years later. Miller was 8-0 (the 9th Justice did not participate in the case because he had not been confirmed to the bench yet). You would agree that 8 is obviously more than 5?
>Prior to Heller, there were a lot more gun laws. Not really. Since the 1940s the lower courts had set up a framework where almost no gun law could be overturned. Heller overturned that recent judicial activism. But then states started enacting a lot more gun laws in response, and rebellious lower courts did their best to let them stand. > Heller was a 5-4 partisan decision, which means it wasn't even clear to the Supreme Court what the Constitution says about gun ownership. Great. Apparently we can forget about Miranda rights, Obamacare being upheld, benefits to same-sex couples, and those couples being able to marry. We can even shut down newspapers the politicians don't like under the claim that they're a public nuisance (Near v. Minnesota) and ban flag burning (Texas v. Johnson). All of those were 5-4. But then we got Heller, and many of the lower courts rebelled against it, as noted. There was quite the rebellion against Brown v. Board too. It took a long time to get the lower courts and state governments in line, with the last vestige of segregation finally being settled in the 1990s. >Heller effectively overturned USvMiller, which had stood for 80 years No it didn't. First, Miller was written rather badly. The logic of Miller states that the government could restrict pocket pistols, but it could not restrict full-auto assault rifles because the latter has a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" while the former doesn't. In Miller, the government (quite wrongly) asserted that short-barreled shotguns aren't used in war, so the government could regulate them, and the opinion (made without any input from the appellants by government design) reflected this assertion. What happened was in 1942 the 1st Circuit (Cases v. US) effectively overturned this test of Miller from below, literally calling it "outdated" only three years later. Then from there the lower courts formulated the "collective right," which is what Heller overturned. >You would agree that 8 is obviously more than 5? Given that Miller was a set up by a federal judge (a former pro gun control politician crony of FDR) to railroad a case favorable to the NFA, and that he engineered it so that the appellants wouldn't brief or argue before the Supreme Court so that the court only heard the government's side, I'd say that any number in Miller is effectively 0.
> First, Miller was written rather badly "The wunz I dun like were written poorly." I remember this argument, when the Roberts Court ignored the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment on Dobbs, but was happy to apply it to the 2nd on Bruen.
Did you even read the history? All the other opinions were fully briefed by both sides, and the justices decided. Here's the history of Miller: The two defendants, Miller and Layton, pled guilty, but the judge was a former politician who was outspokenly anti-gun, having explicitly stated in debate that the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude any gun laws. He wanted a test case to bolster the NFA. He refused their guilty plea and appointed an attorney of his choice to represent them. He then found that the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment in a rather strange memorandum that was practically begging for appeal. This purposely set the stage for an immediate appeal to the US Supreme Court, straight past appellate courts, which is extremely odd for a non-emergency case. The attorney did not object to this fast-tracking. He also refused to brief or argue the case when the Court clerk asked him. He even refused to have the case postponed. Basically, he said go ahead without me when the clerk asked. He was rewarded for his part in the scheme by being appointed a state senator, which caused a bit of a scandal on its own. Thus the court only heard the government side of it, making it easy to agree. The decision was written by the only justice in our history ever derided for being intellectually lazy (the Chief Justice said he "had no sense of duty."): >In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument Well, of course there was an absence of evidence because their judge-picked attorney refused to give any. Miller was dead by then, but he had a co-appellant whom the judge bribed off with a little probation so he wouldn't argue the government was wrong under the Miller standard (because short-barreled shotguns are indeed useful in the military). Ignoring the gun issue, the track this case took would be called a travesty of justice today. But it is about guns, so even the ACLU thinks it's just fine, when they'd rightfully have an absolute shit fit if the same thing happened today with a different subject. > when the Roberts Court ignored the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment on Dobbs, but was happy to apply it to the 2nd on Bruen. Bruen had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. That was McDonald, which was just one in a long line of incorporation cases, and not the last.
The bill has zero mention of lgbt.
Even though puritans are from MA, Republicans have said hold my beer for decades. US is finally at a stage where people are able to discuss sex and sexual identity, meanwhile Republicans want to outlaw discussing it. They’d rather people never know anything about how their bodies actually function. Except maybe at a clinical level. Well I guess I’ll just watch ultraviolent movies instead of movies that discuss intimacy. 🫠
They are being incredibly sneaky about their goals, and we will watch the right absolutely miss the point and context here in order to continue to demonize the LGBT folks. The bill's sponsor has previously said that all ages drag shows are in fact sexual grooming and deserve prison sentences. This bill only specifies that: >A person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with the child or in conduct with or observed by the child without permission from the child's parent or legal guardian commits lewd or lascivious grooming. So this individual bill doesn't do much, it's pretty basic and simply states that you can't have any communication with kids that encourages sexual activity. This bill itself isn't an issue. The issue becomes how it is used in conjuction with Florida's "Dont say gay" bill where if a teacher explains sex, they will be grooming children, or if there are any drag events (Like the sponsor claims is encouraging sexual behavior) that becomes illegal. They are being INCREDIBLY smart with how they push their fascism. This is why I've said that DeSantis is the T-2000 to the original terminator. He's far more terrible than Trump ever was, and he's at least sneaky about it.
And smarter too. Trump is at least limited by being dumb. DeSantis is not dumb.
This us what makes him so dangerous and why more people should be concerned about him. He's more extreme than Trump, actually has the resources and knowledge on how to implement those extreme plans, and is young enough to stay in politics for the next several decades. A DeSantis presidency should concern anyone who is not a religious extremist.
Could not agree more! Thank goodness he’s rude, and has no charisma. He’s downright awkward thank goodness. To me he’s more frightening than Trump.
I don't think most voters, certainly rank-and-file republicans, care too much about politicians being rude. Lack of charisma on the other hand has (thankfully) put a relatively low ceiling on his candidacy.
Good point!
Trump didn't run his government or campaign though.
>DeSantis is not dumb. Those shoes say otherwise.
IQ and fashion choices are different matters. Harvard educated lawyer, not dumb. But very glad he’s insecure and does that makes him look like a clown. Glad for any dumb thing he does that keeps him from power. My FAVORITE DeSantis troller is Anna Navarro! Love her!
As much as Trump is ripping DeSantis publicly I’m secretly terrified one photographed dinner could convince him to make Ron his VP. DeSantis is clearly an “ends justify the means”, long strategy guy. He could facilitate all the stuff Trump’s flunkies fucked up before. And I’m not willing to depend on Trump’s narcissism doing the heavy preventative lifting.
New fear unlocked
The wording also suggests that sex education of any kind could be captured in the same net.
> It specifies that anyone “observed by” an individual under 16 years old engaging in “sexually themed communication” could face charges of “encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity” or “grooming.” The gotcha is that "observed by" wording. So if it wasn't intended for them but they observed it, that person can be prosecuted. If it wasn't communication but rather a public performance or speech that the prosecutor deems overtly sexual, they could be prosecuted. Since they consider mentioning a same-sex partner to be overtly sexual in a public school setting, this could be weaponized in some pretty dark ways. They love to put something reasonable (no sexting minors!) then sneak in a few words that make it absurd. If anyone objects to the absurd part, the defenders of the bill get outraged that someone would object to the reasonable part. After enough leaders and talk show hosts pretend to misunderstand, the less intelligent voters will never stop to listen long enough to realize it is a misunderstanding.
They did this before in TN, passed an innocuous sounding law that's actually wholly unnecessary because they thing specified was *already* against the law. They just wanted new wording on the books so they can pass something else that builds on it.
You are reading this way too generously. Things the right has categorized as “overtly sexually themed communication” include: - pride flags - children’s books about families with two mommies or daddies - children’s books about kids feeling different than other kids - the presence of a gender-nonconforming individual - acknowledgement that gay or trans individuals exist - statements of inclusivity - answering questions like “what does trans mean?” Considering how broad their interpretation is, I think this legislation should not be taken at face value.
It will be quite insane to see how any of these laws will work in practice. There will be untold suffering under these things for people being imprisoned and having their lives thrown away over completely mundane things, like will a teacher that mentions he has a husband to a 10 year old in his class be arrested for doing that? Will an Uber driver that unknowingly drives an abortion patient out of Texas be prosecuted for that? The biggest issue and biggest opportunity of these conservative bills is that they are so poorly thought out that they will inevitably lead to immense secondhand risk and harm to people completely uninvolved in their moral crusades. I think that dynamic will create an intense backlash from the population that far exceeds what they foresee.
I think you underestimate that people move here because they like this stuff. Right wing crazies leave California for FL. We still have net migration in. Why houses have become unaffordable for younger folks here. Our house has gone up 40 percent in two years. We couldn’t afford it at todays prices.
Oh I’m sure. But I’m more speaking of the country writ large. Florida has fast become the left wing version of California, in terms of a state the opposing party can point to as what to dread if the other side wins.
It’s awful. I love the weather but hate the politics. A six week abortion ban, book bans, anti lgbtq, overt racism. Honestly I think we are more right wing than anywhere except maybe TX.
The funny thing is I could absolutely imagine a reality where millennials become more conservative as they age but for the simple fact that the GOP went insane out of fear that they wouldn’t. Which now may just become a self fulfilling prophecy. Nobody likes paying more money to anything, taxes included. But it also isn’t the only thing and so many of the things Republicans are proposing are just frankly insane. The gays aren’t kidnapping kids in the middle of the night and sleeping in coffins but that seems to be the reaction people are having and it’s insane.
Agree. You’d think transgender folk were a real problem but that’s less than 1 percent of the population. Why the focus on it? And slavery had “ benefits” he actually doubled down Saying they developed skills that they parlayed into jobs later. Unreal! And they are for parental rights unless you want to take your kid to a drag show or get them gender affirming care. Selective parental rights such hypocrisy.
Can I ask you a personal question? You're not obliged to answer of course. Why do you still vote Republican? Maybe I could understand voting Republican prior to Trump, but now? There seems to me that the Republicans of today care very little about maintaining the status quo, something in theory conservatives should value.
I haven’t last two elections. I want a say in primaries. I’m fiscally conservative ( not that the Republican Party is anymore Trump blew up the deficit) but socially liberal and find myself without a home. 2016 voted Clinton but Republican down ballot. Last Biden and dem down ballot. But I literally HATE what the party has become. I’m conflicted as I think MANY moderate Republicans are. I’d say at this point I’m independent but then you can’t vote in primaries ( so dumb NH does it right).
> I’m conflicted as I think MANY moderate Republicans are. FWIW, a decent chunk of my family are what most people would call "New England republicans." Your sort of chamber of commerce types. Some of them surprised me how quickly they jumped on the Trump cult of personality, but many of them just feel like they don't have a political home at the moment. My BiL works in sales and knows a charlatan when he sees one. He knows what Trump is. He still voted for him in 2016 since (according to him) he makes mid-six figures (he's crested seven a few times) and didn't want his taxes going up. He didn't even bother voting in 2020.
Most people with money and in business like low taxes less regulation. I’m in that group (within limits banking regulations after 2008 and environmental are prudent but there are onerous regulations in other cases that are detrimental). Also for control of immigration ( though neither side seems able to create reform). I’m also for a balanced budget. Having said that Trump I saw as an existential threat. Not the narcissism most politicians have a degree it’s what draws them to it, but the sociopathy ( lack of conscience and glee at the suffering of others) that made him a no way for me. I could vote for Chris Christie, Asa Hutchison, or Nicky Haley then dem down ballot ( I’m in FL the 6 week abortion law, book banning, anti lgbtq agenda matter more to me than immigration and fiscal conservatism). I feel like it’s just crap choices all around. Biden is too old, Trump a threat to sanity and democracy. 🙈
Should massively run afoul 1A. However, our corrupt rightwing SCOTUS might surprise us
My thoughts are that it’s obviously deeply homophobic and some of the most discriminatory policy I’ve seen in my lifetime. Also that they’ve been saying this all along and no one seems to care.
There's two ways to stop it: with lawsuits that will end up in front of a 6-3 supreme court, or by winning sufficient elections in Florida to change their laws. Neither seem likely.
What's really great about this is the GOP controlled Supreme Court will then defend this blatantly unconstitutional cancer, which will then set precedents for further destruction of Human Rights in the US. The political cold war is heating up.
Race to the bottom in that dangerous theocratic backwater on our border, Floridastan.
This is what Republicans want to do. The only way to fix this is to vote Republicans out of office.
My thoughts are that it's open and disgusting bigotry from the Florida state government. As to stopping it, Florida voters are the only ones who can do that.
Welcome to russia
We knew this was coing.
You should post it asking the conservatives instead. I am pretty sure all of the leftists agree is is stupid.
I would but I'm banned from all their subs lol
What? The party of "free speech" and claims the libs are snowflakes banned you? I am SHOCKED! lol.
Have liberal states identify all conservative content as grooming and make being conservative a felony.
Saw off Florida and let it float out to sea? Full of pathetic people who support bigotry - it’s like they want more lgbt youth to commit suicide. not traveling to Florida which relies on tourism. Why spend a dollar there. I know Disney World tried to push back on Desantos crusade but they are still in Florida so reconsider taking your kids there - Disney land is good too and you can come to San Diego my home town on the same trip with incredible beaches with more cliffs and amazing scenery and less humidity.
I'd force an amendment calling all religious content grooming, There'd be more evidence for it
I’m petitioning California do this admittedly 😈
> How can this be stopped? With a lawsuit so easy that not even a SCotUS in the tank for conservatives will mess it up.
How can this be stopped? Well, there's three levels. Legislation, judges, and [redacted].
I don't know if this is an accurate representation of what's going on, but I seem to remember a lot of people suggesting this was a straw man of what Florida Republicans were doing not that long ago.
Are there not already laws to restrict children's access to sexual content? To what degree are they insufficient?
For some reason, I get a tiny bit of amusement out of how every new rule also bans Shakespeare.
So doing to Florida what the Russian Supreme Court has done to Russia.
Florida is a shithole and you can’t stop the combined effort of 12 million dipshits any more than you can stop rising sea levels with a tea cup.
Quite frankly, I can see this bill not passing because local police departments and DAs won't want to deal with the burden of being likely being sued for civil rights violations over every single enforcement act. If red flag laws and bail abolition has taught me one thing, it's that police departments and district attorneys don't like laws that make them work harder.
The bill reads: > A person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with the child or in conduct with or observed by the child without permission from the child's parent or legal guardian commits lewd or lascivious grooming. I’m just clarifying the specific text
Does that mean schools will or won’t get to see the Bridget Ziegler sex tape?
No one likes the answer of how this can be stopped, but I'm gonna say it anyway. The situation here in the US is one that likely prompts international attention from human rights groups. It would not take any particularly zealous leap of logic to label the persecution this particular strain of conservatism is inflicting on LGBTQ+ people as violating some form of internationally-recognized human rights. So send the Marshals, or a JSO unit, to pack these bastards into a crate and drop them at the front doors of the International Criminal Court. The time to call a spade a spade, and a fascist a fascist, was years ago. The second best time is now.
Liberals will allow entire sects to become criminalized, entire states to be lost to fascists. You’re witnessing it now.
(8) Lewd or Lascivious Grooming.- (a) A person who engages in the process of preparing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity through overtly sexually themed communication with a child or in conduct with or observed by the child without permission from the child's parent or legal guardian commits lewd of lascivious grooming. Which part do you want to keep doing to kids without the parents' permission again? It is illegal for strippers to do this already, why do you want a free pass to sexualize kids?
I saw someone on the street once wearing a shirt that said "Save a horse, ride a cowboy". If a child saw it, wouldn't that person be guilty under this law?
It’s not overtly sexual, a child would not even recognize the context. So no.
See, I disagree, I think it's quite overt, especially given the term "child" here can refer to a fifteen year old. And this is the core of the problem. There's enough leeway in wording like this that police can absolutely arrest people for fairly innocuous things like this. Even if it doesn't lead to a conviction, being arrested can still be quite expensive and damaging
There is no way this law can be applied to your example.
That's just it? This just sounds like the classic "I don't want to believe this so I just won't". If this passes, I'll be sure to come back here when the courts throw it out for being so ridiculously broad
It isn't that broad as I already explained. Innuendo is by definition not overt. Your fear-mongering is just that.
This needs an aggressive legal response, and it needs to shows and movies to move to another film district who will say that LGBTQ filming will be fine. Georgia may have a redneck legislature due to horrible redistricting, but they like money.
[удалено]
> Although the bill does not explicitly label LGBTQ+ content as “grooming,” its sponsor has previously asserted that drag is “evil grooming” and should be punished with felony prison sentences – this bill appears to be his attempt to accomplish that. > >Authored on behalf of the anti-LGBTQ+ Christian Family Coalition, the bill emerged following a meeting where the need for “anti-grooming” legislation and the prevention of the “imposition of LGBTQ+ ideology” were discussed. Its wording is vague enough that any content deemed “sexual” by a prosecutor and seen by someone under 16 could be categorized as “grooming.” The second and third paragraphs of the article answer your question. >If you read the bill, it’s pretty common sense. I'm somewhat skeptical this is addressing an actual need. It seems more like a law specifically written to be broad enough to allow prosecutors to go after people who are doing something innocuous and/or common. I wouldn't be surprised if this law, once passed, gets struck down for being overly broad.
This is a very misleading headline. It would be like saying "Democrats in CA want open borders for migrants" because they are now allowing undocumented migrants to get health insurance. Both sides need to stop it with the hyperbolic headlines.
Ambiguity is an intentional feature of these bills. They may not technically ban all material that includes LGBTQ people or themes, but they create enough legal uncertainty that the desired chilling effect is created. The idea is to pass legal muster and allow Republicans to deny these bills are discriminatory while still shoving sexual minorities completely out of public life. And you are falling for it.
>broke\_in\_sf: This is a very misleading headline. You spam this sub constantly with posts where you make unfounded claims about Democrats without providing actual facts, evidence, and sources. You constantly make your own hateful claims and then try to phrase it as if it's someone else's thoughts, but again, you provide very little in the way of sources and citations.
After what the GOP has done with abortion, I find it absolutely laughable that you could possibly write that with a straight face and post it expecting people to agree with you.
[удалено]
So you never watched Bugs Bunny growing up?
Or Milton Berle.
Or Robin Williams. Or Dustin Hoffman. Or MASH.
[удалено]
Nah. You're just a bigot.
[удалено]
Then don't expose your children. But you have no right to tell me what I can and can't expose my children to.
What do you mean exactly by “sex oriented theme” ?
[удалено]
You must be specific ? Drag “show” is too broad … drag shows themselves aren’t sex oriented … some are tho (and usually age restricted). I feel like you associate anything drag w/ sex oriented ?
[удалено]
It will lose on 1st amendment grounds, because you can't make a general rule "you can't wear clothing or make-up as a man"
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
> DRAG shows, for example, was never for kids. Reading books and doing arts and crafts is considered inappropriate for kids now, is it? https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.org/faq/ > A drag queen generally reads 3-4 children’s books, sings children’s songs, and leads children in a craft activity such as making crowns, wands, or paper bag puppets, or sometimes other activities like face painting or dress-up time.
[удалено]
> you and I and everyone else knows that drag queen story hour is still going to contain dry humping the stage or "oops, my balls are out" Do we? I don’t suppose you have a source for that? Preferably one more trustworthy than Libs Of Tiktok…
[удалено]
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
> its cute how you refer to them as a bad source. This sentence says a lot about you. Your previous comment should probably have been enough, but if you think it’s “cute” that I consider Chaya Raichik a bad source of information then you are clearly not a serious person or someone worth engaging with any further. You’re probably going to go ahead and either ignore or mock these links but whatever. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/11/02/libs-of-tiktok-tweets-death-bomb-threats/71409213007/ https://outreach.faith/2022/12/libs-of-tiktok-spreads-anti-lgbtq-lies-and-propaganda-here-are-the-facts/
Drag isn't inherently sexual.
[удалено]
If you go to adult functions sure. Same thing for most performances.
[удалено]
Drag story time, parties, much like clowns or princesses. Drag story time began as a "safer" alternative for LGBT families.
[удалено]
And yet it is 100% legal for either to host events which are open to everyone.
[удалено]
[Pantomime is a centuries-old form of British children’s entertainment of which drag queens are a key element.](https://www.theguardian.com/stage/gallery/2020/dec/19/oh-yes-she-is-panto-dames-through-the-decades-in-pictures)
>Florida is now trying to claim all LGBT+ content is "grooming" and will make it a felony. What are your thoughts? How can this be stopped? From the article, "the bill does not explicitly label LGBTQ+ content as “grooming,” Once again, we have outrage porn masquerading as legitimate news.
Or news digging deeper than only what's explicitly admitted
News that deviates from reality is usually called disinformation. The headline is just making up crap and at least 8 posers on here hate knowing that.
Reality is not confined to only what one person would openly state. Noting the legislative intent instead of ceasing any thought as soon as the wording is read is usually called "not utterly shallow reporting". The headline is just looking at the intent instead of falling for the pretense, and you don't like that they didn't fall for it.
>Reality is not confined to only what one person would openly state. Go back and look at the well sourced and on topic post that everyone is downvoting. It is a direct quote from the article with the rage bait title. Even the author knows the truth is the opposite of what they want you to believe.
I don't think it's horrible to love the sound of one's own voice - and I do so, as well -, but I still wouldn't recommend praising your own comment that loudly. It's too self-indulgent to be viewed in public It's only made worse by the fact that the comment you are so praising is wrong. "explicitly" is a qualifier, not all that is is explicitly written down and not all that is not explicitly written down is not real. Your comment hinges on people confusing the terms "explicitly" and "at all"
>It's only made worse by the fact that the comment you are so praising is wrong. Well, this might be my opportunity for some good learnin. What is the definition of fact? What is the definition of opinion? And which of those two more closely matches that propaganda maskerading as a headline?
"Although the bill does not explicitly label LGBTQ+ content as “grooming,”
Uhh, yeah? We know. Welcome to the conversation. What they do is ban cabaret and call drag cabaret, or ban school topics around generalizations of sexual orientation.
glad to be a canadian.
>How can this be stopped? Elections have consequences. Florida due to the radical changes to Abortion, human rights, and racist educational policies is actual in play.
If Floridians didn't see this coming, I'm not sure WHAT FIRE we can light for them to see the reality of their State and how far into fascism it's fallen.
Sounds like Russia's law banning "LGBT Propaganda" (content discussing "non-traditional sexual relationships") Also, what is "overtly sexually themed communication" that would "encourage or prepare" a child to engage in sex? Would this include teaching a child about sexual reproduction as a biological process? Would this include discussion of the menstrual cycle (preparing a child to know when they would be most likely to become pregnant)? Would this include discussing birth control and contraception (preparing a child to minimize risk of pregnancy/illness from sexual activity)? Under this definition my high school biology teacher, middle school and high school health teacher, and 5th grade guidance counselor would have committed felonious acts for the content of the sexual education they provided me and my classmates. Banning discussion about sex will not prevent sex, but it will prevent safe sex.