The Florida law that limits drag shows in the state will remain blocked, the Supreme Court said Thursday, dealing a blow to a key initiative championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Florida had asked the high court to narrow a lower court’s injunction that stopped the law from being enforced statewide. The justices declined to do so.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.
I looked up the text of the bill and I’m confused why it’s controversial. Is it due to it being vague? It seems to explicitly forbid from allowing kids at sexually explicit adult shows.
The key is that it doesn’t actually define what “sexually explicit adult shows” are.
But the rhetoric was saying anything and everything counted as “sexually explicit” even when the performers were in full, high necked ball gowns that they had to be sewn into. i.e. any drag show at all.
Also, the rhetoric was about stopping the shows, regardless of the age of the audience.
It’s vague, as they neglected to define “lewd” or “child.” They also did not refute the argument that it violates the first amendment.
Child already has a definition.
So does bigot.
Where on earth did you get anything bigot related from that? Any new law doesn’t need to define an already established and known term.
I thought we were just proclaiming words that are already defined.
And yes, laws DO need to define words in clear and concise language. Otherwise those laws are struck down… Just like this one.
Each law doesn’t have to define every word lol. The word child is already defined by law.
This attempted law being struck down wasn’t struck down because they don’t know what “child” is defined as lol.
Huh. I looked it up and was ready to go all gotcha, but I don’t see any express references to drag. It does refer to chapter 847 which defines obscene acts. In those definitions are, “Predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest;”
So I’m thinking they avoided outright saying it, but that definition allows courts to interpret drag as a morbid interest.
If the government decides it’s shameful, you’re going to jail. And you can bet that regressives like DeSantis already consider it shameful.
I think you meant “prurient”. A morbid interest would relate to death or disease.
Sorry dude. While I realize we’re dissecting legal semantics here, I was copy and pasting on my phone while sitting on the toilet shortly after a questionable dinner. I used the last descriptive word without considering its validity for the topic at hand.
Drag story time at a library isn’t sexually explicit.
Just because YOU become aroused at the sight of a man in a comically colored wig, makeup and frock doesn’t mean that the rest of the world sees it that way.
That’s what I’m talking about. Where in the bill does it ban that?
Are you saying that you don’t think the law would IMMEDIATELY be put to use by going after a restaurant hosting an all ages drag event or a drag story hour? Or do you agree that the intentionally vague wording is meant to provide cover for bigoted anti-trans crusaders?
Stop sea lioning.
I’m saying I’m ignorant of what the law says, and I want to know which part everyone is upset about. I suppose the vagueries around “lewd” and such can lead to bad faith applications.
I don’t have a problem with drag story hour. But I have seen videos of sexual drag performances being performed in front of children, and sometimes by children. I don’t think children should be exposed to that, in the same way they shouldn’t be in beauty pageants and they shouldn’t be shown porn.
Ugh that stupid comic has ruined online discussions. No one can ask for evidence or proof or simply why someone thinks something anymore without being accused of bad faith. Accusation of sea lioning is becoming its own logical fallacy.