SCOTUS Blocks Florida's anti drag law

[Belsnickel]

(11-25-2023, 03:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How so?  I'm sure you have specific examples, but what always pops into my mind when interest balancing comes up is the people who say things like, "If it saves just one life, then it would be worth it" and similar pablum.

I mean, that's an extreme example, but you could also take it in the other extreme where something that could prevent the loss of thousands of lives would not meet the test. A wholesale dismissal of the means-end test causes some issues.

For example, someone directly incites a murderous mob that kills hundreds but does not take any physical action themselves. If you get rid of the means-end test then any criminal charges filed against them could be challenged on their constitutionality. Now, the historical analog could be applied but how broadly that gets applied could be different in each scenario. Any law that restricts another's individual liberties based on public safety could be thrown into question. Then we need to look at the historical precedent, which raises the question of when in history? The constitutional understanding of free speech, for instance, has been constantly evolving and honestly our ability to openly criticize the government is less than a century old. So that could be something challenged.

Let's look in another direction and think about the Fourth Amendment. What becomes unreasonable, now? Public safety can no longer be considered if we jettison the means-end test and now we could end up with police having their hands tied even more. Police weren't even a thing at the time of the Framers, and barely a thing if at all at the time of the 14th, so what historical precedence do we use?

[grampahol]

(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".

Everyone knows how many children have died on the spot as a result of seeing a man in drag.. C'mon Dino, don't try to hide the number zero.. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-25-2023, 03:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, that's an extreme example, but you could also take it in the other extreme where something that could prevent the loss of thousands of lives would not meet the test. A wholesale dismissal of the means-end test causes some issues.

For example, someone directly incites a murderous mob that kills hundreds but does not take any physical action themselves. If you get rid of the means-end test then any criminal charges filed against them could be challenged on their constitutionality. Now, the historical analog could be applied but how broadly that gets applied could be different in each scenario. Any law that restricts another's individual liberties based on public safety could be thrown into question. Then we need to look at the historical precedent, which raises the question of when in history? The constitutional understanding of free speech, for instance, has been constantly evolving and honestly our ability to openly criticize the government is less than a century old. So that could be something challenged.

Let's look in another direction and think about the Fourth Amendment. What becomes unreasonable, now? Public safety can no longer be considered if we jettison the means-end test and now we could end up with police having their hands tied even more. Police weren't even a thing at the time of the Framers, and barely a thing if at all at the time of the 14th, so what historical precedence do we use?

First off, my apologies for the extremely late reply.  Secondly, I agree with you, and I also agree that those examples are extreme.  I would counter by saying that Heller only applies to the 2A.  It is clear to anyone paying attention that interest balancing was used far too often to justify infringements on the second amendment and far too loosely.  Heller, In my opinion, is a direct repudiation of that oft used, and wholly abused, tactic.  Essentially, you've been abusing this tactic so we will take it away from you in its entirety.

I certainly see people potentially using that decision as leverage against restrictions on other rights.  I just don't know if the scope of Heller would allow for it to be used successfully in that regard.