this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
348 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

A group of drag performance groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas, filed a suit against the state early this month claiming that the law is overly broad and infringes on their freedom of speech.

“The Court finds there is a substantial likelihood that S.B. 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.

The law, signed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in late June, bans “sexually oriented performances” that take place in the presence of minors. LGBTQ advocates argued that the bill’s definition of performances is too broad and unconstitutional.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

It’s not about protecting minors. It’s never been about protecting minors. Stop giving them this argument.

It’s about control.