Senate Bill 12 would have prohibited performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children. Critics sued the state, saying it violated the First Amendment.
If they view all drag as sexual why didn't they ban all drag?
If they view all drag as sexual performances, then banning sexual performances is effectively a ban on drag, with the added benefit that useful idiots will happily deploy smokescreens for you. This isn't complicated, you are simply engaging in willful ignorance. This is why I keep repeating that laws do not enforce themselves, but you have such a naive view of how government works that I don't think I can get through to you.
I would flip it around and say if you don't view drag as inherently sexual, then banning sexual drag wouldn't equate to banning all drag. The fact that you think this law is an issue demonstrates that not only do you view drag as sexual, but you think it's okay for children to consume. Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them, and you can only break them if you do something sexual in front of children. I wish you would just be honest and say "I don't think sexual drag in front of children is an issue" and I would respect your point of view a lot more, even if I disagree.
Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them
Laws are enforced when the enforcer's perception is that the law has been broken, not when the law is actually broken. Laws do not enforce themselves, they are enforced by humans, and those humans have beliefs. For example, many believe all drag is sexual. This means that the law will be enforced as such. Do you understand? This is the last time I will attempt to get you to acknowledge this simple fact of reality before I give up and assume you are either too stupid to understand this, or do understand it and are simply lying.
I'm choosing to be very kind by letting your attempted pedojacketing of me slide, as long as you finally acknowledge this.
I don't accept your premise. I've said this numerous times. The bill clearly defines sexual conduct, it isn't going to be up to some individual thinking all drag is sexual, you have to actually violate one of the clearly laid out descriptions of what constitutes sexual nature.
Okay, let's go down that rabbit hole, if only to prove you are not actually principled on the matter. Tell me what is defined to be "sexual gesticulations", as referenced in section 43.28, subsection 1E. This should be easy to resolve if the boundaries of the law are as clearly defined as you keep saying it is.
That… doesn't answer my question at all, and I'm beginning to suspect you aren't good at paying attention.
That doesn't define what a "sexual gesticulation" is. It just defines that it is illegal when done with those prosthetics. So what is a sexual gesticulation?
Oh, it basically just means this thing that isn't clearly defined. Oh, you can just look it up. Look it up where, exactly? What texts are legally admissible to define this? Is it dealer's choice? And where is the line drawn, because a gesture can be sexual in one context and not in another. If someone thinks all drag is sexual, would that not influence how they interpret such a gesture?
This is what I meant. You made a big deal about it being supposedly "clearly defined". When shown that a crucial part of the law isn't clearly defined, you don't actually care, because it never actually mattered to you if it was. So what was the point of all this? Why did you waste my time with this act?
If they view all drag as sexual performances, then banning sexual performances is effectively a ban on drag, with the added benefit that useful idiots will happily deploy smokescreens for you. This isn't complicated, you are simply engaging in willful ignorance. This is why I keep repeating that laws do not enforce themselves, but you have such a naive view of how government works that I don't think I can get through to you.
I would flip it around and say if you don't view drag as inherently sexual, then banning sexual drag wouldn't equate to banning all drag. The fact that you think this law is an issue demonstrates that not only do you view drag as sexual, but you think it's okay for children to consume. Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them, and you can only break them if you do something sexual in front of children. I wish you would just be honest and say "I don't think sexual drag in front of children is an issue" and I would respect your point of view a lot more, even if I disagree.
Laws are enforced when the enforcer's perception is that the law has been broken, not when the law is actually broken. Laws do not enforce themselves, they are enforced by humans, and those humans have beliefs. For example, many believe all drag is sexual. This means that the law will be enforced as such. Do you understand? This is the last time I will attempt to get you to acknowledge this simple fact of reality before I give up and assume you are either too stupid to understand this, or do understand it and are simply lying.
I'm choosing to be very kind by letting your attempted pedojacketing of me slide, as long as you finally acknowledge this.
I don't accept your premise. I've said this numerous times. The bill clearly defines sexual conduct, it isn't going to be up to some individual thinking all drag is sexual, you have to actually violate one of the clearly laid out descriptions of what constitutes sexual nature.
Okay, let's go down that rabbit hole, if only to prove you are not actually principled on the matter. Tell me what is defined to be "sexual gesticulations", as referenced in section 43.28, subsection 1E. This should be easy to resolve if the boundaries of the law are as clearly defined as you keep saying it is.
You should post the full sentence. The fact that you are leaving it out suggests that you aren't being entirely honest with your arguments.
Using accessories or prosthetics. Basically don't mimic sex using props. Seems pretty straightforward.
That… doesn't answer my question at all, and I'm beginning to suspect you aren't good at paying attention.
That doesn't define what a "sexual gesticulation" is. It just defines that it is illegal when done with those prosthetics. So what is a sexual gesticulation?
It basically just means sexual gestures. You can look up what the word means. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
Oh, it basically just means this thing that isn't clearly defined. Oh, you can just look it up. Look it up where, exactly? What texts are legally admissible to define this? Is it dealer's choice? And where is the line drawn, because a gesture can be sexual in one context and not in another. If someone thinks all drag is sexual, would that not influence how they interpret such a gesture?
This is what I meant. You made a big deal about it being supposedly "clearly defined". When shown that a crucial part of the law isn't clearly defined, you don't actually care, because it never actually mattered to you if it was. So what was the point of all this? Why did you waste my time with this act?