Florida bill to require bloggers writing about governor to register with state
wfla.com
wfla.com
But some people are claiming that the bill isn't the way we've been taking it. Some claim that it's like this: If you're a blogger, and political party X is paying you to blog, and you're covering Florida politics, then you have to disclose the source of your funding. If it's that, and it's just that, it likely will pass SC review. It would be just like the radio ads saying "this message paid for by the committee to re-elect Senator Blow." Either that's never been tested at the SC, or it passed. And I personally don't have a problem with a paid-for blog being given the same treatment.
So: Which is it? It's going to depend on the exact wording, because those two versions of the bill are not very many words apart.
So, only if done for money.
> Explicitly, the blogger rule would not apply to newspapers or similar publications, under Brodeur’s proposed legislation.
A pity the Internet was never recognized as equivalent to press, as that has a specific constitutional protection that sending data to an Internet-accessible system does not.
Brodeur, you're a constitutionally-illiterate blowhard with way too much of an authoritarian streak. In any reasonable world, your voters would decide on your total unfitness for office based on this one issue alone, and you would be gone in 2024 (if not impeached before then).
There, I said it. Knock yourself out. See if you can make it fly in court.
> So, only if done for money.
Oh. Rats.
So, a blog with ads.
Florida on the other hand is blatantly violating the 1st Amendment repeatedly.
Or maybe not. Win-win, either way.
Wake me up when the bill makes it out of committee. Until then I can't be bothered to care.
I’m repeatedly amazed how ass backwards Desantis and the entire state legislation is in Florida (my current state) compared to Brian Kemp and the Georgia legislation is (my former state until last year).
And just in case people don’t know, they are both Republicans.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/28/1095225258/disney-world-flori...
In November, the CEO who had provided the criticism to the Don't Say Gay bill was fired.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/21/disney-board-reached-out-to-...
Last month, Florida took over the Reedy Creek board, changed the name, and removed some of their powers.
https://www.flgov.com/2023/02/27/governor-ron-desantis-signs...
There's probably other relevant stuff since April last year that I'm not aware of also. I'm not authoritative.
Probably not as many right wing carpetbaggers in Georgia yet.
Most of the Georgia Republican governors in my adult lifetime have been what now are referred to as “rhinos”.
Please note the sarcasm,
Shock. Gasp. Horror.
I think we do real damage to LGBT causes when we allow their sexuality to be a pretense for inappropriate conduct with children — such as misrepresenting a bill saying you can’t discuss sexuality with young children as “Don’t Say Gay”.
You’re portraying LGBT people as pedophiles to score cheap political points — and Disney fell for the same trap, as their punishment is for sexualizing children… and nothing to do with LGBT rights.
But the law as it is actually used would never punish a man for saying he went on vacation with his wife. But would definitely punish a man for saying he went on vacation with his husband to children.
By the way, I live in Orlando, so I’m not a tight jean wearing hipster living in California who only knows what I hear from the National news.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/florida-teacher-all...
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/-can...
And yes — Disney publicly condemned a law protecting children from inappropriate conduct; ie, Disney publicly came out in favor of sexual discussions with children.
That’s what led to consequences.
- - - - -
Your first example is about a teacher who was fired before this for reasons related to not following the curriculum.
But it correctly describes this law:
> Officially titled the Parental Rights in Education bill, the legislation bans teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
What about that do you specifically object to?
Do you really think the law will be used against teaching about straight couples?
Please specify, precisely, what can and cannot be discussed within the bounds of universal appropriateness with children under the age of 10. If your response is not universal, then you simply reveal that the law under discussion is authoritarian and has no business existing.
Children under the age of 10 can be victims of abuse. Most kids by age 10 have a rough idea about the mechanics of sex. Children can live in homes with loved ones who are gay, lesbian, transgender, asexual, intersex, queer, and more. Children may themselves be homosexual and realize this about themselves before age 10.
An authoritarian approach is to ban discussion and attempt to wrest control in domains the state has no business being in.
A wiser approach is to lay down recommended principles, and allow common law to adopt those which actually are useful for the society of the governed.
There is no universal morality and this is within the bounds of what laws already do:
Regulate the conduct of a licensed profession in their conduct with children.
I agree the state has no business in this area — which is why this law prohibits certain conduct at places the state obligates children to attend. Nobody is saying children can’t have those things, discuss them with families, friends, etc. This is a restriction on teachers, to maintain professional behavior with young children.
The law makes it illegal for a young child with gay parents to draw a family picture and discuss it in classroom.
What it does is what you actually cited:
> prohibits instruction "in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards"
I think it’s telling that you made up a fantasy about “kids with gay parents can’t draw their family!” rather than the actual content — which I cited.
This is what I mean by conflating gay rights with inappropriate conduct with children.
Do you really think parents would use the law to target a man talking about being married to a woman and not a man married to a man.
But yes — I think many parents would be uncomfortable taking children to burlesque shows, rather than drag shows. And similarly uncomfortable with a heterosexual teacher who discussed their sexuality in the way that this prohibits.
We don’t teach young kids about sexuality or gender identity at a young age, regardless.
That’s not the job of school teachers.
The text of (this portion) of the law is:
> Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
It says very clearly that a instruction about gender identity MAY NOT OCCUR before grade 4 - and after that must occur in accordance with state standards and to a vague standard of "appropriateness".
They don’t just object to teachers talking about their sexuality. They object to admitting that gay people exists - ie a man saying “I went to the movies with my husband”.
The bill itself is not a threat. But it's indicative of an Overton window shift that it could even be considered.
And when you wake up, where are you going to move the goalposts to?