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.

  • dynamojoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    207
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.

    Of course they did.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    140
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just to be clear, this law wasn’t passed with any expectation of it ever being implemented. Everyone, including the Florida legislature, knew it was unconstitutional and would be overturned. The people it was passed for will never even know it was overturned though. It was passed for DeSantis who wanted red meat for his base. You should be happy that DeSantis is a terrible politican because he is a terrible person and belongs nowhere near the Presidency.

    • lingh0e
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      She’s a religious nut, but she seems to be a relatively intelligent religious nut with enough of an understanding of the constitution to know this shit doesn’t pass muster.

      Doesn’t mean she won’t uphold future bullshit laws that are less vague.

      We live in the dumbest time-line.

  • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is as clear of a free speech issue as there is. Anyone bringing these cases should be laughed out of any court.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s really not. The majority specifically addressed this, too. The largest fault in the law was its unenforceable vagueness. While the Court did say there are First Amendment issues, the law itself and the instant case were not well-poised for direct analysis as 1A issues.

    • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the secret. There never were any repercussions. All of civilization runs on the trust that people respect others.

      • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like to say that “justice” is a fairy tail people tell their children to help them sleep at night.

    • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There wasn’t when the SCOTUS told Andrew Jackson to respect treaties signed with indigenous populations, and the Trail of Tears and tens of thousands of dead people were the result. In fact they impeached him over this and he bribed a senator to change their vote which put them one vote below the number required to convict. The sort of corruption you mention has been around since the country was founded.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Andrew Jackson was not impeached.

        Johnson was impeached for firing a member of his cabinet without senatorial approval.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Extreme Court is loosening up because most of the country has had just about enough of their shit.

  • devz0r@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • frogfruit
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s vague, as they neglected to define “lewd” or “child.” They also did not refute the argument that it violates the first amendment.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • lingh0e
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the government decides it’s shameful, you’re going to jail. And you can bet that regressives like DeSantis already consider it shameful.

        • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • lingh0e
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • lingh0e
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • devz0r@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            Stop sea lioning

            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.

    • lingh0e
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey, chin up! The same part of the constitution that invalidates this dumb law is the same part of the constitution that makes it possible for you to espouse your bigoted views. Those drag queens are also fighting for YOUR rights to be a loud, proud, backwards thinking asshole.

      Also, you’re a backwards thinking bigot.

      Freezepeach!