“sexually oriented performances”
So no taylor swift concerts then?
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
346 points (97.0% liked)
politics
18651 readers
3572 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Certainly no Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.
Protecting minors must come with it protections for fundamental rights. This is what these legislators consistently forget.
It’s not enough in law to just say “you cannot do something vulgar in front of kids.” Law requires more explicit language. I get a “particular group” tends to dislike 100 page bills, but that is what is required.
Broad language allows interpretation in ways that actually violate free speech. And when one attempts to promote protection at the expense of freedom courts see that as a pretextual basis for just robbing people of their rights.
The conservative groups that so want to “protect children” if they actually sought that as a goal, then their proposals for that protection would actually contain language that took effort to write. Instead they weakly pitch these two or three page laws that are easily dismissed as gross violations of basic rights.
And ultimately that’s how you can see that those who are truly conservative and those who represent them are vastly different. The ones getting elected don’t even try to make comprehensive law, they put out a paltry effort, collect their check, and complain about judges. These representatives are pathetic at doing the job they indicate they so passionately advocate.
That said, plenty wrong with conservatism in general but that’s been covered to death by others before me. But if I was a conservative I would be pissed at SB12’s weak language and that this outcome from the courts was a forgone conclusion for such a shoddy piece of legislation.
Fuck ya abott! The fed court has had enough of your bs! Yeah! Yeah! The GOP is in fuckn flames! Yeah! You look like you're related to fuckn shrek! Yeah!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A federal judge in Texas has stopped the state’s ban on drag performances, which was scheduled to go into place Friday, enforcing a temporary injunction on the measure in a win for LGBTQ rights advocates.
12 as drafted violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution under one or more of the legal theories put forward by the Plaintiffs,” District Judge David Hittner wrote in his opinion Thursday.
Greg Abbott (R) in late June, bans “sexually oriented performances” that take place in the presence of minors.
“Drag performers and LGBTQIA+ allied businesses belong in our state — and Texas politicians have no right to censor our free expression,” the organization said.
“Texas queens and kings from across our great state have been targets of threats and misinformation as a result of the anti-drag law,” drag artist Brigitte Bandit, who is one of the plaintiffs, told The Associated Press.
Dan Patrick (R) said it is meant to “push back against the radical left’s disgusting drag performances.”
The original article contains 324 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 49%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
💀
So much for loving the constitution
In their case, probably limited to a liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Be careful with “liberal,” there are hexbears about ☺️
I always say- They don't care about the constitution and the only amendment they care about is the second half of the second.