Free Speech

[Chrunch Houston]

Because it is their RIGHT to do so. Do you not support the 1st amendment rights of people that work at Disney?

Disney has been granted special status with regards to their huge presence in the state. The people of Florida elected the government that passed a law. Disney chose to come out against the people of Florida by opposing what they wanted. Disney has the right to do that. But speech can have consequences. You don't poke the guy who's giving you a discount in the eye and expect to get the same discount.

You don't get to pick-and-choose who responds to you on a public discussion board,

No, but I can sure as hell pick-and-choose who I respond to.

That would describe literally all of modern society. All this teacher would be doing is describing who they are to your child, which is perfectly reasonable and not a fad. It's no different from the teacher deciding to share a European origin or something.

Who they are or where they are from is one thing. Who they have sex with is entirely different.

The actual real text of the law is more broad, indicating that the intent itself is more broad. Per the text, "[c]lassroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

I agree with this 100%. We are talking about kids eight and younger. Little kids. This kind of discussion is PG-13 at least.

 

[NotThePrez]

Disney has been granted special status with regards to their huge presence in the state. The people of Florida elected the government that passed a law. Disney chose to come out against the people of Florida by opposing what they wanted. Disney has the right to do that. But speech can have consequences.

Except that the whole point of the 1st Amendment is to protect speech from being punished by the government. DeSantis, being the Governor of Florida, cannot and should not punish Americans for exercising their 1st Amendment rights through legislation. However, he has decided to do that to Disney (on top of the many examples of him doing attempting this in the past), which directly infringes on the Constitutional rights of Disney, and all of its American employees. That is a matter of fact, regardless of how much you try to spin it.

BTW, just because "the people of Florida" voted for it (I sure as **** didn't get a ballot in the mail regarding the bill, and I definitely didn't vote for the morons in my state's government), doesn't make the law itself any less unconstitutional. That also is a matter of fact, regardless of how much you try to spin it.

You don't poke the guy who's giving you a discount in the eye and expect to get the same discount.

There's a lot less sympathy for said "poke" when the discount is being taken away illegally.

Also, I'm not surprised that you're trying to take the spotlight off of DeSantis' 1st Amendment violations by trying to make it about the "discount" that Disney gets.

No, but I can sure as hell pick-and-choose who I respond to.

Asks question while making a (poor) argument.

Gets accurate responses to question asked and counter-arguments to position taken.

"Yeah, well, I wasn't talking to you!"

Honestly, that is some major weaksauce.

Who they are or where they are from is one thing. Who they have sex with is entirely different.

Can you provide examples of teachers going into detail about gay sex with elementary and middle school students? Surely this is a well-documented issue if there needs to be a law made about it.

I agree with this 100%. We are talking about kids eight and younger. Little kids. This kind of discussion is PG-13 at least.

Who and what determines this, though? There is no one-size-fits all with learning in general. Kids are extremely perceptive on all aspects of day-to-day life, and they're going to ask questions about anything that they deem "unusual," including why some of their classmates have 2 moms or 2 dads. I have a very hard time believing that holding teachers criminally liable for trying to teach kids about actual, current society, is a good way to solve this "problem."

If a child is able to demonstrate that they're mature enough and smart enough to take in and process the information given to them, and the information can be brought down to a level that they can understand, then imo there's zero reason to not honestly answer their questions, regardless of their age. It's 100% possible to explain homosexuality (and LGBTQ+ as a whole) without talking about sex itself.

 

[Scaff]

We are talking about kids eight and younger. Little kids

All of my kids knew about Gay and Trans people before the age of eight, it's perfectly possible without entering into the mechanics of it, just as it is for hetro relationships.

Kid: why are Bob and Gary married?
Me: Because they love each other?
Kid: Like you and mum?
Me: Yes
Kid : Ok

Name change aside, that was literally the entire conversation, and no, what's taught to under 8s isn't much different.

None of them has grown up to be damaged individuals as a result.

So unless you are also demanding an end to all mention of gender and relationships, including hetro and cis ones, you're a hypocrite.

 

[McLaren]

You don't poke the guy who's giving you a discount in the eye and expect to get the same discount.

You've got that backwards. You don't poke the company who contributes the most to your largest source of state income & is the largest employer in your state just because they exercised the right to speak out.

The other hilarity is the guy "giving the discount" clearly missed the clause in that "discount".

Under Florida law, when a special district government, like the Reedy Creek Improvement District, is dissolved, the dissolution transfers "title to all property owned by the preexisting special district government to the local general-purpose government, which shall also assume all indebtedness of the preexisting special district."[29] In 1866, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "once a local government issues a bond based on an authorized taxing power, the state is contract-bound and cannot eliminate the taxing power supporting the bond"

Congrats on passing the $1 billion bond debt to Floridians. They'll appreciate that.

 

[UKMikey]

Congrats on passing the $1 billion bond debt to Floridians. They'll appreciate that.

If I read this right DeSantis thinks he can just pass another law to make Disney pay. Perhaps he thinks the Supreme Court will overthrow this decision just for him.

DeSantis says Disney will pay for $1 billion bond debt, promises 'additional legislative action'

DeSantis says there will be more legislation to address the tax implications of unraveling Disney's self-governing status.

www.wptv.com

Shades of "let's charge the Mexicans for the border wall".

 

[TexRex]

I agree with this 100%. We are talking about kids eight and younger. Little kids. This kind of discussion is PG-13 at least.

You agree with what 100%? You quoted me as saying the law as it's written is more broad than you previously alleged.

It can't be that you agree with the law as it's written because you'd clearly have it apply more broadly still. I've quoted you as having said so; "PG-13" isn't limited to "kids eight and younger." Curiouser still, you made clear on an earlier occasion that parental discretion isn't sufficient when it concerns that which you oppose.

 

[TexRex]

Good analysis here. The thread is more than the ten tweets I can get into a post and most of them have embedded screenshots or other media, so I'm not going to post/transcribe it in full on the forum.

 

[Blitz24]

Good analysis here. The thread is more than the ten tweets I can get into a post and most of them have embedded screenshots or other media, so I'm not going to post/transcribe it in full on the forum.

He is very good at analysis and I have communicated with him multiple times on legal issues (and on our pathetic interest in a certain NFL team).

 

[TexRex]

 

[Tornado]

lol probably-not-future-Twitter-owner Elon Musk going full "Woke leftist"-meltdown on Twitter because he keeps getting ratio'd by The Hard Drive.

 

[McLaren]

Lmao at Elon's last attempt at retorting what is & isn't funny even though he originally reposted the meme. Real "ackchyually" vibes there.

 

[Tornado]

Wow they work fast

 

[TexRex]

God damn, what a soft bitch.



Also, that wasn't the worst recent SNL--kind of middle of the road, honestly--but that sketch was horrendous.

Also, I desperately want to see Sideshow Bob's hair photoshopped onto Musk's head.

 

[Tornado]

 

[Scaff]

View attachment 1155941

Given Musk's free speech drive I'm still waiting for him to void all the NDA's he's had put in place over the years.

Oh wait....


....he just means for him doesn't he.

 

[TexRex]

Oh my ****ing god. 230 isn't even implicated here. I don't recall even seeing it in NetChoice's application for emergency relief. It figures only insofar as it actually preempts the law as written, as acknowledged by one of those who wrote it, because those who wrote it are breathtakingy stupid mother****ers.

This is just part of the conservative bitchfit against Section 230 because Alito is party to that particular bitchfit, and it's ****ing pathetic. How do these whiny mother****ers get through life?

 

[Blitz24]

Oh my ****ing god. 230 isn't even implicated here. I don't recall even seeing it in NetChoice's application for emergency relief. It figures only insofar as it actually preempts the law as written, as acknowledged by one of those who wrote it, because those who wrote it are breathtakingy stupid mother****ers.

This is just part of the conservative bitchfit against Section 230 because Alito is party to that particular bitchfit, and it's ****ing pathetic. How do these whiny mother****ers get through life?

How on Earth did both Kavanaugh and ACB not vote against this?

I say this in jest of course because I think both of them kind of realize the trouble this law would bring. Kagan I don't get at all.

 

[TexRex]

How on Earth did both Kavanaugh and ACB not vote against this?

I say this in jest of course because I think both of them kind of realize the trouble this law would bring. Kagan I don't get at all.

Kavanaugh isn't terribly surprising even sans the spectre of legal fallout, particularly given his having deivered the majority opinion in the not-too-dissimilar-yet-narrowly-applied Halleck decision.

ACB, to my knowledge, hasn't delivered any substantive opinions to compare with her joining this majority. I'm not surprised, I just don't know what to expect from her here.

Kagan wasn't really a dissent, mind you. She just wouldn't have granted relief. This seems to be driven by her opinion of the shadow docket more than the constitutionality of the law that's been blocked. It's a little surprising that she didn't join the majority, as she may very well have like she did in Masterpiece, but hers seems to be a procedural concern (if an inconsistent one) rather than a constitutional concern.

The biggest surprise--and it really shouldn't be--is Alito's absolutely ****ing insane dissenting opinion.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I haven't seen it discussed anywhere on this forum (I could simply be missing it) but the Amber Heard & Johnny Depp ******** has finished, with the jury largely siding with Depp. I think free speech here is implicated as it's kind of balled up with defamation.

I think it was an enormous disservice to impartial justice to have this hearing be televised. From the very beginning I started seeing pieces of it pop up everywhere across social media, to a degree that surprised even me - the fact that I couldn't escape it while not being a user of Facebook, Instagram or Twitter was remarkable. And it was all aggressively pro-Depp, to the point where it felt a bit like astroturfing. It would be crazy (as crazy as Depp and Heard apparently are) to hold that the virality of the case did not impact the outcome. This whole thing has had a Peter Thiel / Hulk Hogan / Gawker aura around it (if you told me he financed the media blitz, I wouldn't bat an eye), and it felt designed to effectively assassinate Amber Heard.

I don't know all the facts of the case, but in the past defamation (particularly involving celebrities) has had a pretty high bar, seemingly higher of a bar than the evidence against Heard seems to support. The whole thing has made me feel pretty uneasy.

Here's a take that more or less echoes what I've been thinking: The Depp defamation suit should outrage and appall you

 

[Joey D]

Really the Depp v. Heard case came down to lawyers. Heard's legal team was horrendous and didn't know what they were doing. It wouldn't surprise me if they took the case purely for publicity. Depp's team on the other hand knew what they were doing and this clearly wasn't their first rodeo.

I don't hate the verdict though. In a roundabout way, I think it will change the stigma that men can't be abused. Also, I think it might open the door for men who've been wrongly accused of abuse or rape to attempt to seek damages for it. While I don't personally care about Heard or Depp, they're not that famous for no reason and it's clear a ton of people do like them and they're likely influential on some level.

 

[TexRex]

Conservative outlet The Daily Wire (primary platform of Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh) ran an anti-Heard propaganda campaign. The consensus seems to be that this was an effort by the right to deal a blow to "MeToo," whether it can reasonably be said to have done so or not.

The most I got from the suit itself was the allegation that Heard dumped on Depp's bed. Apparently an expert witness for Heard also flubbed hard on the stand, but I don't know how. I've gotten more post-verdict, with countless stupid mother****ers insistent that it's done and dusted with no opportunity for the "guilty" Heard to appeal.

Honestly, the less I know about it the better. It's stupid.

 

[TexRex]

How the **** is each one of these more unhinged than the last?

How the **** is each one of these more unhinged than the last?!

HOW THE **** IS EACH ONE OF THESE MORE UNHINGED THAN THE LAST?!?!?!

 

[Tornado]

There is irony in Musk continuing to lie (without immediate consequence) about the terms of his deal on Twitter, the same platform he accuses of asymmetrical cancel-culture and suppressing free speech.

 

[TexRex]

 

[TexRex]

"Free speech but only if I approve of it."

 

[UKMikey]

"Free speech but only if I approve of it."

How the conservative online porn debate 'started':

How it's going:

 

[McLaren]

I was wondering when porn would start being attacked. They'll likely make up a bunch of reasons, but we already know why they'd want it gone.


Sex is for procreation only.

 

[UKMikey]

I guess contraception is next then. The republican birth control pill will end up being like the Catholic one in that old joke: it's six foot in diameter and she puts it against the bedroom door so he can't come in.

 

[TexRex]

I was wondering when porn would start being attacked. They'll likely make up a bunch of reasons, but we already know why they'd want it gone.


Sex is for procreation only.

Porn has always been under attack.

Obscenity and Pornography

Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards is not protected by the First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

 

[McLaren]

Porn has always been under attack.

Obscenity and Pornography

Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards is not protected by the First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

You're absolutely right. I should've said when it would be brought back into the spotlight to be banned; unless a scandal happens like w/ a certain former President, I've rarely seen porn brought into the spotlight by politicians.