Federal judge temporarily halts Tennessee's 'drag ban' law on free speech grounds

[Bradskii]

“No evidence before the court indicates that minors face any harm from drag-related events or other speech and expression critical of gender norms,”

This... 'it's actually authorities in charge of protecting children who make that decision.' ...apparently means only if the person agrees with the decision. It's the same ol' same ol'.

Should parents have the right to choose what their kids see?
Ah, I can't say because it depends on whether I agree with it or not.

Is this policy good for the country?
Mmm. You'll have to tell me which party proposed it before I can say.

Is this a reasonable statement?
I'm not sure. You'll have to tell me who said it so I can know if it is or not.

Should recognised authorities have the right to determine if something is harmful to children?
Well, that depends if I personally think it's harmful or not.

 

[Truth7t7]

Federal court blocks Montana drag ban​

“No evidence before the court indicates that minors face any harm from drag-related events or other speech and expression critical of gender norms,” Morris said. “H.B. 359’s terms prove vague and overbroad, chilling protected speech and creating a risk of disproportionate enforcement against trans, Two-Spirit, and gender nonconforming people.”

(Judge Brian Morris) a Barack Obama Apointee, also stopping the keystone pipeline and killing thousands of jobs and income for working Americans

 

[essentialsaltes]

(Judge Brian Morris) a Barack Obama Apointee, also stopping the keystone pipeline and killing thousands of jobs and income for working Americans

Was his ruling in accordance with the law?

It doesn't seem like there can have been anything too wrong with his decision, as neither the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS stayed his decision. The matter has become moot since then, IIRC.

 

[Bradskii]

Ah, an addendum:

Should recognised authorities have the right to determine if something is harmful to children?
Well, that depends if I personally think it's harmful or not OR the authority is a judge appointed by a Democratic president.

 

[Truth7t7]

Was his ruling in accordance with the law?

It doesn't seem like there can have been anything too wrong with his decision, as neither the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS stayed his decision. The matter has become moot since then, IIRC.

Its a Temporary ban, and will soon be reinstated or appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court if needed, its of interest in several states presently

The law has listed the drag queen shows in "Adult" content and entertainment unsuitable for minors, time will tell, it's a long way from being settled

 

[Servus]

Its a Temporary ban, and will soon be reinstated or appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court if needed, its of interest in several states presently

The law has listed the drag queen shows in "Adult" content and entertainment unsuitable for minors, time will tell, it's a long way from being settled

It seems like plain common sense to classify it as adult content. And I can see the SCOTUS ruling it as such. I don't think it was ever an issue until the recent weird craze to get kids involved in drag.

 

[Larniavc]

I suppose if/when society is chock full of trans

Only in the fever dreams of folks with wild imaginations.

 

[Larniavc]

It's about minors. People wanted to protect children and they found a way to circumvent that.

Here we go: protect them from what?

Does it rhyme with looming?

 

[Servus]

Only in the fever dreams of folks with wild imaimaginations

I should have said trans, nonbinary, genderfluid et al, among generation z and generation alpha.

 

[Bradskii]

Another addendum:

Should recognised authorities have the right to determine if something is harmful to children?
Well, that depends if I personally think it's harmful or not OR the authority is a judge appointed by a Democratic president AND if that's the case then it's only temporary, so there!

 

[JustOneWay]

Here we go: protect them from what?

Does it rhyme with looming?

This topic has been argued into the ground.

The fact remains that parents have the control to decide what their children watch or do not watch. This topic is nothing more than a group of individuals who wish to take the control away from parents to choose what their children watch. This is a classic example of people interfering into personal family matters and restricting freedoms.

 

[JustOneWay]

Another addendum:

Should recognised authorities have the right to determine if something is harmful to children?
Well, that depends if I personally think it's harmful or not OR the authority is a judge appointed by a Democratic president AND if that's the case then it's only temporary, so there!

If people really cared about the children, they would start by controlling all the sexual content on television children are bombarded with every day, instead of a once a year (perhaps) Drag Queen story hour.

 

[Servus]

Here we go: protect them from what?

Adult content. Keeping children from adult content was never considered a bad thing, until recently.

Does it rhyme with looming?

Not by your limited definition of what grooming means.

 

[Servus]

If people really cared about the children, they would start by controlling all the sexual content on television children are bombarded with every day, instead of a once a year (perhaps) Drag Queen story hour.

Parental controls keep children from being bombarded with sexual content. Although obviously there are liberal parents who want that for their children.

 

[Larniavc]

Parental controls keep children from being bombarded with sexual content. Although obviously there are liberal parents who want that for their children.

Are you a parent?

 

[Servus]

Are you a parent?

Irrelevant.

 

[Larniavc]

Irrelevant.

I see.

 

[Servus]

I see.

I doubt it.

 

[Larniavc]

I doubt it.

I do.

 

[Servus]

I do.

Do you have anything non personal, on topic and of substance to offer?