Jump to content

US Politics: Sorry, we do make the rules.


LongRider
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

It is the legislation itself because it is so broad, and thats the point. 

Your argument is that as bad as the law is, we should be interpreted specifically to only mean drag story time, but the law isnt specific, the law doesnt actually say that. 

No different than schools that have "no politics" policies and deem MLK shirts  or pride flags as political.

Its so broad that it can indeed include a trans person not wearing clothing that agrees with what they were assigned at birth. 

 

You are going to have to provide a link, because that's not how its being reported over here.  From what I've read there would be no (legal) ramifications for a trans person going about their daily business in public.  And in case it needs saying, i reiterate, i find the proposed law both stupid and abhorrent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

 

You are going to have to provide a link, because that's not how its being reported over here.  From what I've read there would be no (legal) ramifications for a trans person going about their daily business in public.  And in case it needs saying, i reiterate, i find the proposed law both stupid and abhorrent. 

A trans woman whose a music teacher goes to her sixth grade class and plays an instrument.

She’s wearing  a dress.

What do you think the people who signed onto this bill want to see happen to her?

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A trans woman whose a music teacher goes to her sixth grade class and plays an instrument.

She’s wearing  a dress.

What do you think the people who signed onto this bill want to see happen to her?

 

I'm sure they want terrible things to happen to her, but my reading of the bill would not allow for any legal action to be taken as it wouldn't appeal to the 'prurient interest' and would be for education, not entertainment. 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:



Its so broad that it can indeed include a trans person not wearing clothing that agrees with what they were assigned at birth.  A trans person would technically be violating this law if they were a teacher and song happy birthday along with the whole class or if they did the electric slide at city hall

How would this appeal to the prurient interest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

Your argument is that as bad as the law is, we should be interpreted specifically to only mean drag story time, but the law isnt specific, the law doesnt actually say that. 

Precisely.  Vaugely worded legislation gives law enforcement all sorts of room for abuse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

How would this appeal to the prurient interest?

Define, specifically, a “purient interest”.  Does it mean the same thing to you as it does to the man writing this legislation?  To the person managing the local library?  To Karen Shreksalot who’s picking up the latest bodice ripper romance at that library? To the person reading to kids at the library is very sober drag?  To the law enforcement officers called by Karen Shreksalot when she she’s the storytime ongoing?

Hence the problem.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Define, specifically, a “purient interest”.  Does it mean the same thing to you as it does to the man writing this legislation?  To the person managing the local library?  To Karen Shreksalot who’s picking up the latest bodice ripper romance at that library? To the person reading to kids at the library is very sober drag?  To the law enforcement officers called by Karen Shreksalot when she she’s the storytime ongoing?

Hence the problem.

I said it was a shit law.  However the way it is written, and taking prurient interest at face value, a music teacher singing songs would not satisfy it, a person managing a local library would not in all likelyhood lip-sync, dance or otherwise perform for an audience of at least two people in an act that is “intended to appeal to the prurient interest” to qualify as a drag performer under the proposed legislation.

Whether people just run roughshod over the legislation is another matter, I'm sure they would, but that's not the point I'm discussing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I said it was a shit law.  However the way it is written, and taking prurient interest at face value, a music teacher singing songs would not satisfy it, a person managing a local library would not in all likelyhood lip-sync, dance or otherwise perform for an audience of at least two people in an act that is “intended to appeal to the prurient interest” to qualify as a drag performer under the proposed legislation.

Whether people just run roughshod over the legislation is another matter, I'm sure they would, but that's not the point I'm discussing. 

In… your… opinion.  Will the local Magiatrate in Jacksboro Arkansas see things your way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I said it was a shit law.  However the way it is written, and taking prurient interest at face value, a music teacher singing songs would not satisfy it, a person managing a local library would not in all likelyhood lip-sync, dance or otherwise perform for an audience of at least two people in an act that is “intended to appeal to the prurient interest” to qualify as a drag performer under the proposed legislation.

Whether people just run roughshod over the legislation is another matter, I'm sure they would, but that's not the point I'm discussing. 

I can’t believe you don’t see the ~ inevitable danger in allowing the people who think someone in ‘trans’ clothing reading to children is strictly entertainment to define what is and is not ‘educational’ if/when they have legislature defining the former as strictly entertainment. 
 

edit: It’s all they need, except for arguably avoiding any of the many hardcore progressive prosecutors and judges in Arkansas. 

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I can’t believe you don’t see the ~ inevitable danger in allowing the people who think someone in ‘trans’ clothing reading to children is strictly entertainment to define what is and is not ‘educational’ if/when they have legislature defining the former as strictly entertainment. 
 

edit: It’s all they need, except for arguably avoiding any of the many hardcore progressive prosecutors and judges in Arkansas. 

You literally haven't read what I've written at all.  I have already covered off the fact that i see great danger in the legislation and i find the legislation abhorrent and stupid.  I've written it more than once. 

I've never said the legislation wouldn't be corrupted by those with an ulterior motive, what I've argued is that taken at face value the legislation wouldn't prevent a number of things that people said they would.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In… your… opinion.  Will the local Magiatrate in Jacksboro Arkansas see things your way?

No, its not my opinion, just because someone would choose to misinterpret it, doesn't mean they wouldn't be wrong to interpret it this way.  You are arguing with a point i'm not and have never made. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

How would this appeal to the prurient interest?

The prurient interest would be stated to be the trans person own interest, not that of the audience.

I understand your point that the language of this law does not explicitly ban trans people from the public eye, but that will be the functional outcome of it because - as you've said - it's not just bad in what it explicitly does, it's shit law that is wide open to abuse. And that's by design so that it can be used to do what we all agree it will be used to do without having to say it's doing it, it's not shit law by accident. The continuing escalation is scary as fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, this reminds me of a sociology professor I worked for back at Pitt.  He said he used to dress up in drag during his course to challenge students' preconceived notions.  Now, in recent years he stopped doing it because he realized it was offensive to actual trans people -- which it is.  And of course he was teaching at a university where students are generally 18 and over - albeit not necessarily. 

But still, the government has absolutely no business codifying an individual's identity as obscene or "prurient."  Potter Stewart's famous quote on pornography/obscenity was "I know it when I see it."  The only thing clearly obscene here is the legislation itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DMC said:

But still, the government has absolutely no business codifying an individual's identity as obscene or "prurient."  Potter Stewart's famous quote on pornography/obscenity was "I know it when I see it."  The only thing clearly obscene here is the legislation itself.

Exactly.  And this is not just a drag thing.  If you can criminalize how people dress what is there to stop a burqa ban, a kippah ban, or a sarong (sorry, David Beckham).  This legislation clearly violates the First Amendment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

 

You are going to have to provide a link, because that's not how its being reported over here.  From what I've read there would be no (legal) ramifications for a trans person going about their daily business in public.  And in case it needs saying, i reiterate, i find the proposed law both stupid and abhorrent. 

My quoted text in the previous post is the actual law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm sure they want terrible things to happen to her, but my reading of the bill would not allow for any legal action to be taken as it wouldn't appeal to the 'prurient interest' and would be for education, not entertainment. 

LOL, what do you think Drag story time is ? they are literally reading books to kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

LOL, what do you think Drag story time is ? they are literally reading books to kids. 

I'm loathe to keep on here because it sounds like I'm defending this piece of shit legislation. 

Reading books to kids (kids books for clarity) would not meet the threshold for a prosecution as understood by any sane mind with even a basic understnding of how to interpret and apply laws (I do this shit fir a living). 

However, because your country is fucked up and the right wing is insane I have no doubt they would try all sort of illegitimate prosecutions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm loathe to keep on here because it sounds like I'm defending this piece of shit legislation. 

Reading books to kids (kids books for clarity) would not meet the threshold for a prosecution as understood by any sane mind with even a basic understnding of how to interpret and apply laws (I do this shit fir a living). 

However, because your country is fucked up and the right wing is insane I have no doubt they would try all sort of illegitimate prosecutions.  

You have to understand that the law was specifically proposed and voted in to stop the specific act of people in drag reading to kids. That was the major impetus. So if your interpretation is that it doesn't apply to that you are clearly not interpreting it correctly, as that is at the very least what they will do when enforcing it. That is the bare minimum example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

You have to understand that the law was specifically proposed and voted in to stop the specific act of people in drag reading to kids. That was the major impetus. So if your interpretation is that it doesn't apply to that you are clearly not interpreting it correctly, as that is at the very least what they will do when enforcing it. That is the bare minimum example.

If so they did a fucking terrible job of writing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...