SCOTUS Blocks Florida's anti drag law

[*pally*]

Last spring Florida passed a law called the "Protection of Children Act" which allowed the state to issue penalties to any establishment that allowed minors to view any performance that contained content that "simulates nudity, sexual conduct or specific sexual activities" or depicts "lewd conduct." Drag shows by the simple act of men wearing female costumes and makeup fell into that category.

A Florida establishment sued based on their 1st amendment rights coupled with the vagueness of the law. The 11th Circuit stayed the law statewide. Florida appealed saying the stay should apply only to the suing establishment not the entire state to the SCOTUS. Today, they upheld the stay. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch sided with Florida on all grounds. Kavanaugh and Barrett sided with the majority on the application of the stay stateside. So now it is back to the state courts for a full court case and then of course the expected appeals from whichever side loses in state court

[Luvnit2]

(11-16-2023, 07:44 PM)pally Wrote: Last spring Florida passed a law called the "Protection of Children Act" which allowed the state to issue penalties to any establishment that allowed minors to view any performance that contained content that  "simulates nudity, sexual conduct or specific sexual activities" or depicts "lewd conduct."  Drag shows by the simple act of men wearing female costumes and makeup fell into that category.  

A Florida establishment sued based on their 1st amendment rights coupled with the vagueness of the law.  The 11th Circuit stayed the law statewide.  Florida appealed saying the stay should apply only to the suing establishment not the entire state to the SCOTUS.  Today, they upheld the stay.  Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch sided with Florida on all grounds.  Kavanaugh and Barrett sided with the majority on the application of the stay stateside.  So now it is back to the state courts for a full court case and then of course the expected appeals from whichever side loses in state court

It can't be, conservative justices siding with liberal justices.

[*Nately120*]

(11-16-2023, 08:00 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It can't be, conservative justices siding with liberal justices.

True, not all that insane.  Judges from both sides rejected Trump's 2020 rigged election cases, for example. 

[GMDino]

(11-16-2023, 08:00 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It can't be, conservative justices siding with liberal justices.

Quote:Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch sided with Florida on all grounds.

[BigPapaKain]

The government's job isn't to babysit. Why should a law be made that basically forces them into that role?

[*Nately120*]

(11-17-2023, 01:09 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: The government's job isn't to babysit. Why should a law be made that basically forces them into that role?

Two things Americans love:

1.  talking about how much they love freedom and how free America is and how freedom makes it great and how they'd gladly die for freedom
2.  petitioning the government to reduce various freedoms for their own good

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The law was overly broad, hence the block. If they removed the more vague language or inserted more specificity then it would likely be fine. I wonder why this gets such quick treatment but all the unconstitutional gun laws get mired in the courts for fricken years?

[*pally*]

(11-17-2023, 01:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The law was overly broad, hence the block.  If they removed the more vague language or inserted more specificity then it would likely be fine.  I wonder why this gets such quick treatment but all the unconstitutional gun laws get mired in the courts for fricken years?

oh the actual court cases will take years.  This was just a quick vote on whether to confirm or deny the 11th circuit's stay of the law.

Even if they change the wording, Florida will have to show how a man wearing a female costume is somehow obscene regardless of the material presented because banning ALL drag shows was the intent of the law

[*Nately120*]

(11-17-2023, 01:26 PM)pally Wrote: oh the actual court cases will take years.  This was just a quick vote on whether to confirm or deny the 11th circuit's stay of the law.

Even if they change the wording, Florida will have to show how a man wearing a female costume is somehow obscene regardless of the material presented because banning ALL drag shows was the intent of the law

We could knock both things out in one fell swoop if we can find data that just 1 man who dresses like a woman used his 2A right to shoot a bad person.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2023, 01:26 PM)pally Wrote: oh the actual court cases will take years.  This was just a quick vote on whether to confirm or deny the 11th circuit's stay of the law.

Even if they change the wording, Florida will have to show how a man wearing a female costume is somehow obscene regardless of the material presented because banning ALL drag shows was the intent of the law

I understand that, except for some reasons the stays on gun laws are consistently overturned.  I don't think you can make the claim that banning all drag shows is the goal when the law specifically states shows conducted in front of minors.  Is having minors in the audience a prerequisite for having a drag shows?  If not then the law wouldn't ban all drag shows.  As stated above I agree that the law as written is overly vague, making a stay a reasonable order.

[*pally*]

(11-17-2023, 02:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I understand that, except for some reasons the stays on gun laws are consistently overturned.  I don't think you can make the claim that banning all drag shows is the goal when the law specifically states shows conducted in front of minors.  Is having minors in the audience a prerequisite for having a drag shows?  If not then the law wouldn't ban all drag shows.  As stated above I agree that the law as written is overly vague, making a stay a reasonable order.

Maybe because people won't die from drag shows
Are drag shows, regardless of content, inherently obscene or sexual, simply by the performers wearing exaggerated female costumes? Would the same material be obscene if they were wearing male costumes or performed by women wearing the same exaggerated costumes?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2023, 03:00 PM)pally Wrote: Maybe because people won't die from drag shows
Are drag shows, regardless of content, inherently obscene or sexual, simply by the performers wearing exaggerated female costumes?  Would the same material be obscene if they were wearing male costumes or performed by women wearing the same exaggerated costumes?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I'll answer your question, even though it completely dodges the point.  That being that the law only bans drag shows in front of minors, and not drag shows in general as you incorrectly asserted.  As to your question, it depends.  Would it be inherently sexual for a man to dress up in Victorian female attire and dance around?  Probably not.  Would it be if they were wearing the same attire and simulating oral sex on an adult toy, probably yes.  There's rather a lot more to what would make it sexual/obscene than simply a man in female clothing or a woman in male clothing.  Much as the Florida law is far too broad in its perception, your example is far too narrow.

[XenoMorph]

children definitely should not be at these shows.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-17-2023, 06:23 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: children definitely should not be at these shows.

Then don't take your kids to them.

But you don't get to decide how other people raise their kids.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2023, 06:27 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Then don't take your kids to them.

But you don't get to decide how other people raise their kids.

So people can beat their kids, let them drink booze, smoke marijuana, watch pornography and let them not attend school?  Seems to me that there's a lot of ways people decide how others can raise their kids.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-17-2023, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So people can beat their kids, let them drink booze, smoke marijuana, watch pornography and let them not attend school?  Seems to me that there's a lot of ways people decide how others can raise their kids.

Given the conservative movement to move our society back to the 1950's, sure people can beat their kids. Did great for that generation - just ask them.

More kids drink booze than don't. Americans are just weird about alcohol for some reason. Hell, we're fine with sending people off to die for their country before they can legally drink.

Weed is only a drug because black people smoked it during the Jim Crow Era and it scared white folks. Same reason gun control became a thing.

Anecdotally, my parents were fine letting me watch the most brutal violence the 80s and early 90s could produce but were weird about letting me see a set of tits. What do you think I grew up to see plenty of? I'll give you a hint - I've never seen a hockey mask wearing zombie.

Given the push for conservatives to make schooling useless, going to school or not won't matter in a few decades anyways. Plus I've learned more useful things online than school ever taught me. Even before the rise of the internet, I learned more on my own volition than I did in school, to the point where my high school English teacher directed a student to ask me a question about Greek Mythology during our reading of the Odyssey because I knew better than him, apparently. Dude had a doctorate and was a year from retirement and couldn't answer a simple question.

[GMDino]

(11-17-2023, 09:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Given the conservative movement to move our society back to the 1950's, sure people can beat their kids. Did great for that generation - just ask them.

More kids drink booze than don't. Americans are just weird about alcohol for some reason. Hell, we're fine with sending people off to die for their country before they can legally drink.

Weed is only a drug because black people smoked it during the Jim Crow Era and it scared white folks. Same reason gun control became a thing.

Anecdotally, my parents were fine letting me watch the most brutal violence the 80s and early 90s could produce but were weird about letting me see a set of tits. What do you think I grew up to see plenty of? I'll give you a hint - I've never seen a hockey mask wearing zombie.

Given the push for conservatives to make schooling useless, going to school or not won't matter in a few decades anyways. Plus I've learned more useful things online than school ever taught me. Even before the rise of the internet, I learned more on my own volition than I did in school, to the point where my high school English teacher directed a student to ask me a question about Greek Mythology during our reading of the Odyssey because I knew better than him, apparently. Dude had a doctorate and was a year from retirement and couldn't answer a simple question.

Yes, just SEEING a drag show is the same as beating your child....LMAO!




How will we ever survive as a country?

All seriousness aside the right is so hung up on sex they think EVERYTHING is about sex.  They can't even fathom a drag show that isn't pure erotica for the "them".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2023, 09:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Given the conservative movement to move our society back to the 1950's, sure people can beat their kids. Did great for that generation - just ask them.

Your first of a serious of strawmen, but I will endeavor to persevere. 

Quote:More kids drink booze than don't. Americans are just weird about alcohol for some reason. Hell, we're fine with sending people off to die for their country before they can legally drink.

First off, this is not true.  Most children, i.e. minors under fourteen years of age, absolutely do no consume alcohol.  If we're talking about adolescents, then yes, the number isn't insignificant.  But here's the thing, there is a huge difference between what you do on the sly as a teenager and what your parents openly permit you to do.  teenagers test boundaries and limits, it's part of the process of growing up.  I watched pornography as a teenager, my parents certainly didn't allow it.  I was at a somewhat new friend's house once when I was thirteen.  He asked me if I wanted to watch a porno.  His mom was home and I asked how that was going to happen.  He then directly asked his mom which of the four pornos she had rented was the best, she replied and then he put it on the TV in the family room.  Literally while his mom was on the couch.  Needless to say I stopped hanging out with that dude after that.

Quote:Weed is only a drug because black people smoked it during the Jim Crow Era and it scared white folks. Same reason gun control became a thing.

Same point for weed as booze above.  Impressive way you shoe horned racism into this discussion though.

Quote:Anecdotally, my parents were fine letting me watch the most brutal violence the 80s and early 90s could produce but were weird about letting me see a set of tits. What do you think I grew up to see plenty of? I'll give you a hint - I've never seen a hockey mask wearing zombie.

Yes, we we definitely have a tolerance for violence in what our children watch that probably isn't healthy.  Not sure how this bolsters your position though.

Quote:Given the push for conservatives to make schooling useless, going to school or not won't matter in a few decades anyways. Plus I've learned more useful things online than school ever taught me. Even before the rise of the internet, I learned more on my own volition than I did in school, to the point where my high school English teacher directed a student to ask me a question about Greek Mythology during our reading of the Odyssey because I knew better than him, apparently. Dude had a doctorate and was a year from retirement and couldn't answer a simple question.

I'm sorry your schooling experience was so por.  I had some wonderful teachers in high School that taught me a lot.  But again, not sure how this bolsters your position.  The point of all of this is that the government can, and does, have restriction on what parents can and cannot do, despite your claim to the contrary.  The vast majority of the time they are perfectly reasonable.  It is interesting though that this parental autonomy argument goes right out the window the minute parents start taking issue with sexual and LGBT issues being taught in public school.  Then all of the sudden its schools know better than parents.  A bit inconsistent, no?

(11-17-2023, 10:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, just SEEING a drag show is the same as beating your child....LMAO!


How will we ever survive as a country?

All seriousness aside the right is so hung up on sex they think EVERYTHING is about sex.  They can't even fathom a drag show that isn't pure erotica for the "them".

In your haste to dogpile you rather ignored the actual point being made.  That being that government restrictions on parents already exist.  You think a child attending a drag show is fine, in many states you can do exactly that.  In Florida you cannot, or could not.  Personally, I think exposing a child to a cabaret style performance is a bit much.  Do I think it should be illegal, no, not personally.  But in Florida they think differently.  Just as there are laws in CA that I find inane and you likely have zero problem with.  But pretending that Florida is beyond the pale for trying to enact such a law is just silly far left hand wringing.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-18-2023, 02:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your first of a serious of strawmen, but I will endeavor to persevere.

Ah calling something a strawman - the easier way of saying "well that's a devastating point I cannot make a point against". But maybe you're right and the conservatives of this country aren't trying to repeal all the progress we've made in voting rights and bodily autonomy and I've just been imagining that for the last 20 years. If so, my bad.

Quote:First off, this is not true.  Most children, i.e. minors under fourteen years of age, absolutely do no consume alcohol.  If we're talking about adolescents, then yes, the number isn't insignificant.  But here's the thing, there is a huge difference between what you do on the sly as a teenager and what your parents openly permit you to do.  teenagers test boundaries and limits, it's part of the process of growing up.  I watched pornography as a teenager, my parents certainly didn't allow it.  I was at a somewhat new friend's house once when I was thirteen.  He asked me if I wanted to watch a porno.  His mom was home and I asked how that was going to happen.  He then directly asked his mom which of the four pornos she had rented was the best, she replied and then he put it on the TV in the family room.  Literally while his mom was on the couch.  Needless to say I stopped hanging out with that dude after that.

As a country, we make up less that 5% of the world population but somehow account for everything in the world in the mind of most Americans.

Quote:Same point for weed as booze above.  Impressive way you shoe horned racism into this discussion though.

Tell me then why pot is illegal. Because it's let's addictive than nicotine, causes less bodily harm than tobacco and alcohol, and is great for pain without all the harmful side effects of morphine. I mean, a quick search on the history of its legal status proves my point, but that'd mean you'd have to try.

Quote:Yes, we we definitely have a tolerance for violence in what our children watch that probably isn't healthy.  Not sure how this bolsters your position though.

I'll make it as simple as I can - porn isn't any different than any other form of media. It's an overblown production of an otherwise natural act, sure. America's inherent prudishness makes it weird, that's it.

Quote:I'm sorry your schooling experience was so por.  I had some wonderful teachers in high School that taught me a lot.  But again, not sure how this bolsters your position.  The point of all of this is that the government can, and does, have restriction on what parents can and cannot do, despite your claim to the contrary.  The vast majority of the time they are perfectly reasonable.  It is interesting though that this parental autonomy argument goes right out the window the minute parents start taking issue with sexual and LGBT issues being taught in public school.  Then all of the sudden its schools know better than parents.  A bit inconsistent, no?

Not so poor that I misspell things like 'poor', but point taken. Schools in poor neighborhoods aren't exactly known for being bastions of learning, after all. (The pot shot at the typo is a joke btw)

The government can also take away the people's guns, but you'd be adamant that it'd be wrong. Just because the government can, doesn't mean that it's what's best for the country or its citizens.

As to the last sentence, yes - teachers do know more than parents in terms of education. It's their entire job. I wouldn’t trust a baker to put on crown on one of my teeth. I don't know when it happened, but this country really needs to go back to trusting its experts on things.  

Quote:In your haste to dogpile you rather ignored the actual point being made.  That being that government restrictions on parents already exist.  You think a child attending a drag show is fine, in many states you can do exactly that.  In Florida you cannot, or could not.  Personally, I think exposing a child to a cabaret style performance is a bit much.  Do I think it should be illegal, no, not personally.  But in Florida they think differently.  Just as there are laws in CA that I find inane and you likely have zero problem with.  But pretending that Florida is beyond the pale for trying to enact such a law is just silly far left hand wringing.

Again, just because they can doesn't mean they should. 

I'm with you - I personally wouldn't take my child to a drag show. But I also wouldn't go out of my way to hide anything from them. An educated child makes far better decisions than a child who is sheltered (see also: abstinence only sex education versus ACTUAL sex education).

Plus the government getting involved in people's personal lives reeks of overreach, which I'm sure everyone agrees is not great.

[*pally*]

(11-18-2023, 02:51 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Ah calling something a strawman - the easier way of saying "well that's a devastating point I cannot make a point against". But maybe you're right and the conservatives of this country aren't trying to repeal all the progress we've made in voting rights and bodily autonomy and I've just been imagining that for the last 20 years. If so, my bad.


As a country, we make up less that 5% of the world population but somehow account for everything in the world in the mind of most Americans.


Tell me then why pot is illegal. Because it's let's addictive than nicotine, causes less bodily harm than tobacco and alcohol, and is great for pain without all the harmful side effects of morphine. I mean, a quick search on the history of its legal status proves my point, but that'd mean you'd have to try.


I'll make it as simple as I can - porn isn't any different than any other form of media. It's an overblown production of an otherwise natural act, sure. America's inherent prudishness makes it weird, that's it.


Not so poor that I misspell things like 'poor', but point taken. Schools in poor neighborhoods aren't exactly known for being bastions of learning, after all. (The pot shot at the typo is a joke btw)

The government can also take away the people's guns, but you'd be adamant that it'd be wrong. Just because the government can, doesn't mean that it's what's best for the country or its citizens.

As to the last sentence, yes - teachers do know more than parents in terms of education. It's their entire job. I wouldn’t trust a baker to put on crown on one of my teeth. I don't know when it happened, but this country really needs to go back to trusting its experts on things.  


Again, just because they can doesn't mean they should. 

I'm with you - I personally wouldn't take my child to a drag show. But I also wouldn't go out of my way to hide anything from them. An educated child makes far better decisions than a child who is sheltered (see also: abstinence only sex education versus ACTUAL sex education).

Plus the government getting involved in people's personal lives reeks of overreach, which I'm sure everyone agrees is not great.

It is an especially far reach for the party that self-declares they are for small government, personal freedom, and parent's rights.  Oh and decry "cancel culture"