Florida’s vile ‘groomer’ law may soon blow up in DeSantis’s face

[Somerville]

Lawyers can always find a way to play with a law in ways that seemingly contradict the intentions of those who wrote the law and those who support it. Passing a law that restricts the free speech rights of a citizen must be vague enough in its wordings that the restrictions don't apply to any individual or group and instead affects everyone. No matter how conservative or oppressive a legislature may be, they must follow the Constitution - Florida could not pass a law that tells teachers they Can't Say Gay. Funny how the vagueness of the phrases may used against the intentions of the formulators.

Florida’s vile ‘groomer’ law may soon blow up in DeSantis’s face ​

One of the more repulsive features of Florida’s new law restricting classroom discussion of sex and gender is its vagueness. This might be a feature, not a bug: It could encourage conservative parents to sniff out violators around every classroom corner, contributing to the atmosphere of moral panic it appears designed to stoke.

But, in an example of how the worst-intentioned legislating can backfire on bad actors, the law’s vagueness might end up handing opponents a hidden weapon against it.
The Florida law that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed last month empowers parents to take actions against offending school boards. But lawyers challenging it now tell me they think liberal parents might use this same tool to wage guerrilla legal resistance designed to expose its true intentions, making it more legally vulnerable.

If so, it could help expose the epic bad faith at the core of this whole project, which employs such legislation to foment parents’ fear of an army of deviants out to pervert or indoctrinate their kids.
[. . .]
So what’s to stop parents from bringing actions against school boards from the other side — against references to heterosexuality or cisgenderism that can be deemed “instruction” in “sexual orientation or gender identity”?

“If a teacher can’t assign a story about a young girl who comes home after school to her two mommies, that teacher also can’t assign a book about a young girl who comes home to her mommy and daddy.” Taking the law at face value, Matz said, both “equally instruct” on “sexual orientation.”

Such actions from the left might be rooted in a desire to lay bare the law’s actual intent. If the law’s sponsors object to such actions while supporting ones brought against invocation of LGBT matters, doesn’t that give away the game?

 

[Phys251]

Lawyers can always find a way to play with a law in ways that seemingly contradict the intentions of those who wrote the law and those who support it. Passing a law that restricts the free speech rights of a citizen must be vague enough in its wordings that the restrictions don't apply to any individual or group and instead affects everyone. No matter how conservative or oppressive a legislature may be, they must follow the Constitution - Florida could not pass a law that tells teachers they Can't Say Gay. Funny how the vagueness of the phrases may used against the intentions of the formulators.

Years from now, Florida's Don't Say Gay law is going to be taught in law schools as an example of how not to write a law.

I WANT mainstream, liberal parents to weaponize this law against anything heterosexual in the curricula. Straight IS a sexual orientation, which the law bans.

Hell let's go for broke and get the Bible banned from Florida classrooms.

And no more pictures of teachers' opposite-sex spouses on their desks, because that's obvious indoctrination. /s

 

[Schism]

Years from now, Florida's Don't Say Gay law is going to be taught in law schools as an example of how not to write a law.

I WANT mainstream, liberal parents to weaponize this law against anything heterosexual in the curricula. Straight IS a sexual orientation, which the law bans.

Hell let's go for broke and get the Bible banned from Florida classrooms.

And no more pictures of teachers' opposite-sex spouses on their desks, because that's obvious indoctrination. /s

That's the lefts plan: "to weaponize this (or any) law against anything (and everything) heterosexual"

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Lawyers can always find a way to play with a law in ways that seemingly contradict the intentions of those who wrote the law and those who support it. Passing a law that restricts the free speech rights of a citizen must be vague enough in its wordings that the restrictions don't apply to any individual or group and instead affects everyone. No matter how conservative or oppressive a legislature may be, they must follow the Constitution - Florida could not pass a law that tells teachers they Can't Say Gay. Funny how the vagueness of the phrases may used against the intentions of the formulators.

Then the law will just be amended to fix it.

Man the left is really upset to see effective resistance mobilized against them,

The biggest reason is because as popular support builds behind de Santis we’re going to get the stupid court decision expanding the CRA to cover gender delusions overturned

 

[Bullseye]

Years from now, Florida's Don't Say Gay law is going to be taught in law schools as an example of how not to write a law.

I WANT mainstream, liberal parents to weaponize this law against anything heterosexual in the curricula. Straight IS a sexual orientation, which the law bans.

Hell let's go for broke and get the Bible banned from Florida classrooms.

And no more pictures of teachers' opposite-sex spouses on their desks, because that's obvious indoctrination. /s

There is no "Don't say Gay Law" so I guess the law students just get a free period.

 

[Court Jester]

Lawyers can always find a way to play with a law in ways that seemingly contradict the intentions of those who wrote the law and those who support it. Passing a law that restricts the free speech rights of a citizen must be vague enough in its wordings that the restrictions don't apply to any individual or group and instead affects everyone. No matter how conservative or oppressive a legislature may be, they must follow the Constitution - Florida could not pass a law that tells teachers they Can't Say Gay. Funny how the vagueness of the phrases may used against the intentions of the formulators.

There is NOTHING in the Florida law which even mentions the word "gay", and teachers at not prohibited from using that word, so maybe you should have taken the time to read the actual law before commenting from ignorance on it.

There is also NO unlimited free speech in an elementary school classroom anyway. Same way there is no unlimited free speech in a private work place. A teacher is not permitted to come to class and attempt to evangelize students to some particular brand of religious belief; every school district in the country has the ability to prevent that, even with the force of law behind them.

All the Florida law does is to provide a policy in which sexual topics are limited to age appropriateness. In this case until 4th grade and beyond. What it is so wrong with that?

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Then the law will just be amended to fix it.

🤣

Amended to say what, exactly?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

🤣

Amended to say what, exactly?

The eventual goal will be to return to a society that actively promotes normal relationships

 

[Somerville]

Why do so many "gay haters" turn out to be hiding their own desires?

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

The eventual goal will be to return to a society that actively promotes normal relationships

🤣

Who's eventual goal?

Who do you think you're speaking for?

 

[tacomancer]

Years from now, Florida's Don't Say Gay law is going to be taught in law schools as an example of how not to write a law.

I WANT mainstream, liberal parents to weaponize this law against anything heterosexual in the curricula. Straight IS a sexual orientation, which the law bans.

Hell let's go for broke and get the Bible banned from Florida classrooms.

And no more pictures of teachers' opposite-sex spouses on their desks, because that's obvious indoctrination. /s

At its most lawyerly level, schools cannot have boys and girls bathrooms.

This is kind of similar to how people fought the ten commandments on state property thing, at least this is how it looks at a glance.

 

[Somerville]

There is NOTHING in the Florida law which even mentions the word "gay", and teachers at not prohibited from using that word, so maybe you should have taken the time to read the actual law before commenting from ignorance on it.

There is also NO unlimited free speech in an elementary school classroom anyway. Same way there is no unlimited free speech in a private work place. A teacher is not permitted to come to class and attempt to evangelize students to some particular brand of religious belief; every school district in the country has the ability to prevent that, even with the force of law behind them.

All the Florida law does is to provide a policy in which sexual topics are limited to age appropriateness. In this case until 4th grade and beyond. What it is so wrong with that?

You should try reading the words quoted in the OP's link before posting words that indicate you failed to read all of the quoted words.

"So what’s to stop parents from bringing actions against school boards from the other side — against references to heterosexuality or cisgenderism that can be deemed “instruction” in “sexual orientation or gender identity”?

“If a teacher can’t assign a story about a young girl who comes home after school to her two mommies, that teacher also can’t assign a book about a young girl who comes home to her mommy and daddy.”

In a classic "cover your ass" move, one may read - if they choose to do so - the sentence in Bill 1557, which follows a paragraph about parental rights to all information about a child's "mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being"

"This sub-paragraph does not prohibit a school district from adopting procedures that permit school personnel to withhold such information from a parent if a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment or neglect"

the words may be read in Section 8, para 2 of the bill

 

[Rawley]

That's the lefts plan: "to weaponize this (or any) law against anything (and everything) heterosexual"

Very unhappy, angry people. What a horrible way to go through life "What can I be angry about today?"

 

[Rawley]

You should try reading the words quoted in the OP's link before posting words that indicate you failed to read all of the quoted words.

"So what’s to stop parents from bringing actions against school boards from the other side — against references to heterosexuality or cisgenderism that can be deemed “instruction” in “sexual orientation or gender identity”?

“If a teacher can’t assign a story about a young girl who comes home after school to her two mommies, that teacher also can’t assign a book about a young girl who comes home to her mommy and daddy.”

Sure they can

 

[CaughtInThe]

Then the law will just be amended to fix it.

Man the left is really upset to see effective resistance mobilized against them,

The biggest reason is because as popular support builds behind de Santis we’re going to get the stupid court decision expanding the CRA to cover gender delusions overturned

Technically they can only amend it but so much and stay inside of our constitution.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The eventual goal will be to return to a society that actively promotes normal relationships

According to whom?

 

[CaughtInThe]

At its most lawyerly level, schools cannot have boys and girls bathrooms.

This is kind of similar to how people fought the ten commandments on state property thing, at least this is how it looks at a glance.

I was is gonna use the exact same example of Christian symbols and things on government property.

Wasn't it the church of satan that blew that up.

 

[tacomancer]

I was is gonna use the exact same example of Christian symbols and things on government property.

Wasn't it the church of satan that blew that up.

Yup and if they go more specific with their language, they run into the 14th amendment. At least it appears so from my non-lawyerly eye.

 

[CaughtInThe]

“If a teacher can’t assign a story about a young girl who comes home after school to her two mommies, that teacher also can’t assign a book about a young girl who comes home to her mommy and daddy.” Taking the law at face value, Matz said, both “equally instruct” on “sexual orientation.”

 

[Maccabee]

That's the lefts plan: "to weaponize this (or any) law against anything (and everything) heterosexual"

That's what you get for targeting people minding their own business teaching kids not to hate people for being different.

 

[Maccabee]

Then the law will just be amended to fix it.

Man the left is really upset to see effective resistance mobilized against them,

The biggest reason is because as popular support builds behind de Santis we’re going to get the stupid court decision expanding the CRA to cover gender delusions overturned

How's it going to be amended?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

How's it going to be amended?

Don’t know nor does it matter much right now.

 

[Schism]

That's what you get for targeting people minding their own business teaching kids not to hate people for being different.

LOL! What a twisted conclusion. Go enjoy your LGBTQ lifestyle and leave indoctrinating K-3 children out of it.

 

[Maccabee]

Don’t know nor does it matter much right now.

It does matter because you're talking about treading on constitutional rights.

 

[Maccabee]

LOL! What a twisted conclusion. Go enjoy your LGBTQ lifestyle and leave indoctrinating K-3 children out of it.

No one is indoctrinating kids. It's ok for kids to know that Mrs. Johnson's wife baked cookies for the class. It's ok for kids to know that they don't necessarily have to like the opposite gender.