A federal judge has temporarily blocked a new Tennessee law limiting drag shows on constitutional grounds. Like many, I have been appalled by some images of very young children watching highly sexualized routines in schools or businesses. However, many of these events are held off school grounds and with the support of their parents. As a parent of four, I cannot imagine taking my kids to some of these shows, but we all raise our kids according to our own values. Putting that concern aside, I have serious free speech concerns over the reach of these laws. Federal district judge Thomas Parker granted an injunction on the grounds that the Tennessee law is vague and overly broad. I think that Judge Parker is right.
A Shelby County-Memphis based LGBTQ theatre company, Friends of George’s, had sued the state of Tennessee over the law.
“Drag” is not defined in the law. Instead drafters modified the definition of adult cabaret in Tennessee to mean “adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors.” Treating all “male or female impersonators” the same as strippers and exotic dancers sweeps across artistic, social, and even political lines. The challengers noted that the same outfit prohibited for drag performers under the law would be entirely legal for cheerleaders or other women in public events.
The vagueness problems could be reduced by limiting the scope to adult entertainment settings. However, Parker noted that the scope of the prohibition is unclear and could include a private home. Section 2 of the Statute makes it “an offense for a person to perform adult cabaret entertainment,” either “(A) On public property; or (B) in a location where the adult cabaret entertainment could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.”
These laws have obvious implications for free expression. Judge Parker was correct to enjoin the law pending further review. It is likely that the law will be declared unconstitutional unless the legislature seeks to amend the law and declare the litigation moot.
Here is the order: 03-31-2023-Order-Granting-TRO
Judge Parker is 60 years old, but unmarried and without children. Suspicious he’s all in for protecting drag perversions.
The apparently eager, even desperate desire of these drag queens to perform for children is bizarre, unseemly and suspect. The whole gender syndicate appears to stem from a pathetic, narcissistic demand to always be the center of attention, with corresponding tantrums of increasingly malicious degree if their demands are not accommodated. To clothe these crude, indecent demonstrations of sheer exhibitionism in the solemn garb of “freedom of expression” seems a bit much. The proverbial pervert in a raincoat exposing himself to children on the corner could make the same claim.
Children need to be children. They are having perversion and sex misinformation foisted on them at an early age. Why? What they are seeking is openly discussed by the NAMBLA (North American Men Boy Love Association). They openly promote pedophilia and are working fervently through propaganda to weaken society’s resolve.
The philosophy of those who push such bizarre ideas comes from their religious devotion to such people (troubled, demented and known pedophiles) as Alfred Kinsey and John William Money who preached that children were sexual from the cradle. Their ideas are from the era when medicine thought that frontal lobotomies was the answer to troubled individuals. Just shove an ice pick through the nose…no problem.
There is no reason that children should be exposed to this. They should be playing and being children.
I imagine many of those who openly say they are for this would change their tune if they found out their little children or grandchildren were being preyed on and assaulted by perverts. This is not okay. It is not innocent.
People like Svelavz, Gigi and Dennis McIntyre have written time and time again about books being banned in Florida schools. When I point out that these books are full of pornographic material they never respond with any concern for the subject matter. When I point out the content of these books they always respond with “they’ll just see it on the internet anyway” argument. Right on cue when they respond they say that they have never supported the distribution of this material in Florida schools when they have constantly screamed that such material should not be banned for the consumption of ten year old children. Then when I point out that they want to keep this pornographic material in Schools the call me a liar. So Svelaz, Gigi and Dennis McIntyre please say that you are in support of allowing books depicting ten year old boys performing oral sex on one another. What is it yes or no? Say it plainly so that we can understand. Svelaz says I am a prude. If in opposing this kind of material being given to children I will proudly wear a “P” badge on my sleeve so it will be easier for them to identify me. A green “P” on my sleeve stands for prude. A brown “P” on someones sleeve stands for pedophile. Excuse me, I should have said an “MA” patch stands for minor attracted.
Thinkitthrough: I love it when you put me in the company of Svelaz and Gigi. I wear it as a badge of honor. I can’t speak for either of them. They are quite capable on their own.
But I do want to address your bizarre claim that I “support of allowing books depicting ten year boys performing oral sex on one another”. You have raised this issue in previous comments. It’s a boogyman. You have never cited any book title or author where that activity is discussed. Not in FL or elsewhere. And I am unaware of any such book that has been or is considered for banning in FL schools. So please provide me with any title you think shows or discusses oral sex between ten year olds.
And what other books do you consider “pornographic”? It’s an amorphous term that can mean anything. At one time James Joyce’s “Ulysses” was deemed by US authorities “pornographic” and banned. If you have the research skills go to the website “Banned & Challenged Books” for a long list of books banned from school libraries. They involve many classics and books dealing with slavery, racism, the Holocaust and LGBTQ themes.
Unlike you I am a “free speech absolutist”. My default position is that books dealing with race, slavery, the Holocaust or LGBTQ themes should not be banned from school libraries or topics for discussion in the classroom. I’m in good company. A federal judge in Texas just ruled that 12 books that were removed from public libraries because that deal with race and LGBTQ content, have to be put back on the bookshelves within 24 hours. Judge Robert Pitman said: “Although libraries are afforded great discretion for their selection and acquisition decisions, the First Amendment prohibits the removal of books from libraries based on either viewpoint or content discrimination”.
You know your problem? You can’t hold two opposing thoughts in your brain at the same time. Every parent is entitled to keep certain books away from their children. But you don’t have the right to tell other parents what they choose to allow their children to read or discuss the school room. It’s called “freedom of choice”. Got it now?
MAKE AMERICA REASONABLE AGAIN!
With this legislation + others in some Red States (eg, Abortion Bans), it seems like GOP is choosing to go Hard Right, almost in opposition to the Hard Left craziness of the Radical Progressives who clearly control the Biden Admin & many DEM-run areas. BUT, I believe this is the wrong approach and will not produce the desired result. When GOP goes “full ban” or overly broad, like this statute, it gives the Anarchists ammunition to scream “fascists”, “Dictators”, “nazis”, etc, and to claim the GOP are taking away rights, trying to eradicate some group of folks, etc. I think most of us would agree that’s neither what we want nor feel.
What we need instead is a “common sense” approach aimed at the “just right of center” point that I believe much of the Nation sits at. For example: Most of us agree that whatever your personal views on abortion, the choice as a Nation should be a reasonable compromise where eg, we allow for eg the 1st several months of pregnancy. BUT, when the Baby Brain starts develop nerve endings @ the 2nd Trimester, that seems a fair place to draw a line in the sand giving we are all just guessing anyway. Before that, teens probable should have their Parents input absent exigent circumstances. And after that point, rape, PSYCHICAL threat to mama’s life, and other special circumstances should still have the option open.
Similarly, as to drag shows & the like: all most of us really care about is making sure that NO ONE dresses & performs like strippers in close proximity to our kids. We dont care what gender or even species anyone thinks they are, or who they love or even how. All most of us care about is keeping clear & present danger away from our kids, and trying to being reasonable in how we assess & approach that in advance. And yes, most of us would “know it when we see it” as to clear, actual dangers: so it shouldn’t be a hard standard to agree, articulate & enforce. Also yes: this Judge was correct to point out than anything overly-broad to that end to could end up inadvertently banning eg, school Cheerleaders. But, we also don’t want cheerleaders giving lap-dances to our kids, or bending & girating right in front of their little faces with their bits & pieces showing! This is of course why cheerleaders generally dont do such things, or when they do, they’re called out & stopped.
As another example: No we dont want constitutionally-protected books banned anywhere! But, books with clear porn in them or those with a clear agenda that negatively targets readers by race or other protected class are generally not. A handful of special topic books (eg, disabled kids help, books for the autistic, age-appropriate reproductive health books, civil rights books, etc) may of course be protected bc they don’t negatively target a protected class but instead seek to help them, without negatively targeting another group. Consequently, those may be viewed by local communities as providing educational value, at certain places & times, and so when/where/how books on those special topics are made available in the school should thus be made on a case by case basis, by that community.
In sum: If applied to many of our current problems, I believe a more measured, centered & surgical message better aligns with what’s in most of our hearts & minds, better focuses on important compromises where we disagree, and would thus resonate more broadly with American voters. Being the Party of Reason can be a winning approach in today’s crazy world where bans, mandates, under-prosecutions, over-spending, over-indulgence, extreme wealth, overt hate, overt politicization of our institutions, government overreach, etc. are all too common, and, I think most of us would agree, are harming our children & our country.
Yes, gender (i.e. sex-correlated attributes, e.g. sexual orientation)-affirming therapy unpredictably fails, and, in fact, forces a progressive condition in the majority of test subjects. Still, the odds of remaining viable are better than victims of elective abortion or human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather progress.
For example: Most of us agree that whatever your personal views on abortion, the choice as a Nation should be a reasonable compromise
Today, you might be close to say “most”. But most would be wrong.
The actual solution is the 10th amendment. Federalism.
Which brings us to why a federal judge is bigfooting, local and state judges. They went to the same law schools. Those closest to the debate should settle the debate. Besides making sense, it follows the constitution.
A good read on this subject is a book by Miriam Grossman, M.D. She is a pediatric and adolescent psychiatrist with four decades experience. The book “You’re Teaching My Child What?” Is eye opening and disturbing. I highly recommend reading it. This book is full of references.
Jonathan: I agree. Judge Parker was correct in blocking Tennessee’s anti-drag show law as a violation of the 1st Amendment.
I attended my first and only drag show when I was about 22–at the urging of some of my fellow university students. It was in a gay bar in the Tenderloin District of San Francisco. At first we were shocked but found the performances entertaining–the singing (from well known Broadway shows), costuming, choreography and attention to detail. We came away impressed–not repulsed. It was an entertaining night.
Now, you say “I cannot imagine taking my kids to some of these shows,…”. Why not? Even if your kids asked to go? What harm could come from your kids attending a drag show performance? Some in the anti-LBGTQ crowd think allowing kids to attend such a performance would give Drag Queens an opportunity to “groom” your kids. That’s often the excuse for trying to isolate and stigmatize the LGBTQ community. No kid is going to be “converted” by attending a single drag show! So what are you afraid of if your kids asked to attend a drag show? Maybe your statement reflects your own anti-LGBTQ views. That’s sad because your kids are deprived of exercising their own “free speech” rights but also won’t have the unique experience I had when I was 22. I don’t know the ages of your kids but if they are teenagers and wanted to attend a drag show what could be the possible harm? I mean, if your kids wanted to go how would you stop them? As a parent and grandparent I can tell you telling a kid they can’t do something is exactly the thing they want to do? After all, a drag show is just performance art–isn’t it?
@ Dennis +100
I concur! Also, isn’t it supposed to be up to parents to control what their children see and hear, instead of the legislature?
Yahoo! The beastieality express is right around the corner. Choo-choo-choo-choo.
Gigi: Yes. Parents have a perfect right to control what their kids hear or see. What they don’t have a right to do is tell OTHER parents what their children can and cannot see or hear–or read!
I believe it was judge Richard Posner that said the constitution was not a suicide pact.I believe that there are limits in life.
Well, maybe, baby… fetal-baby. Self-abortion, as abortion, is inferred from the emanations from penumbras (i.e. Twilight fringe) of the Constitution and the modern hypocritic (sic) oath.
I went to some of those SF shows, loved Beach Blanket Babylon, and saw similarly entertaining shows around eg, NYC & Amsterdam while living there, too. Most were fabulous. But this is not what folks generally are having an issue with and, all due respect, your comment not only misses that mark, but it reframes the argument away from their point, into a different & erroneous one that can be viewed as very threatening & dangerous to other folks. I believe this communication “error” is what’s causing others to (very rightfully) feel attacked as it lends to them (understandably) mis-hearing an important POV. This causes greater divide & hate, and we certainly don’t need that right now. So, in an effort to do my humble, little part to try & narrow the divide, I’m taking the time to speak up here:
– Most people who speak against this issue say they’ve no problem with others being trans, or dressing or identifying how they want, or loving how, when or who they want.
– To reiterate: Most people against this issue (who others incorrectly say are against “Drag Shows”), make clear that being trans or dressing in Drag isnt their problem or concern at all! Instead, what they’re against is adults acting/dancing like strippers, right in front of children, in our schools & protected public places…like libraries. Most of us also don’t want adults dressed like strippers with boobs & bits hanging out, sitting on the floor of our classrooms reading books to our kids!
– And we’ve all seen the many videos where that’s happening, even in rural America, and the normalization of such things troubles us deeply. It troubles us deeply that this isnt just happening rarely & being called out and stopped by responsible adults when it happens. Instead, we see the opposite; Powerful forces in our society seemingly championing such things, and, even worse, threatening to cancel/fire/ostracize/harm those who speak out against doing so!
– I believe that, as a Nation, most of us actually agree that we dont want strip shows in our schools or kids’ libraries. I believe most of us also agree that we dont want women represented to our children as sexual objects. I could go on with the examples, but instead take this Judge’s good “Cheerleader” point to what I believe is its further, logical conclusion; I believe most of us basically agree that Cheerleading is appropriate eg, on the field or in the gym, but it should never be OK for “women” to wear super short or scanty cheerleading costumes in kids libraries while they Twerk for dollars, or to sit spread eagle in our Kindergartens reading books to kids.
– So, maybe if we start listening to people instead of trying to shut them up, maybe if we stop reframing someone else’s views as something they’re not, maybe then others will stop feeling like they’re being attacked…when that actually may not be intended at all. Or, if it ever is, maybe we can all then unify in calling that out together..and stopping even more stuff we agree is bad. – – – Maybe then, we’ll all finally start realizing that we actually have a lot more in common that we’re being led to believe!
+100
True.
Ethics has been failing, so like many times in the past, law steps in.
Law does not always step in competently.
“Even if your kids asked to go?”
Kids ask for a lot of things. Responsible parents know when to say “no.” It’s called setting limits and boundaries, something sorely missing from today’s “parenting.”
And the results? Those kids, now college students, acting out the heckler’s veto.
Some years ago it was same sex marriage coming up for every election. That was all that was wanted. Now they want the children. Not all. But enough that they are at risk. If you cannot take a child into a bar or saloon why should you be able to take them where an overtly sexual show is the entertainment. Let them be children whilst they can. Protect them,
let them have a chance at normal development.
Normal development according to who? You’re dictating how someone else should be raising their children. You wouldn’t stand for some stranger telling you how you manage the raising of your children.
Drag shows are not as leud as the right likes to portray it. They only do that because they don’t like it. Guess what? They don’t have to take THEIR children to such events. Parents who are ok with it can choose have their children there as is their right.
Lawmakers are legislating their values onto those they don’t like. I thought republicans were against such notions.
The American Taliban is alive and well.
Some drag shows are lewd and some are not. Are you a part of the lewd shows or the others?
Parents have rights, but no rights are absolute.
There is plenty of video of drag shows available. Are the all that lewd ? I have no idea, but there are plenty of Trans Activists posting shuch shows on TikTok and they are most definitiely NOT trying to make them appear family friendly.
As Maya Angelou said – When someone shows you who they are – Trust them the first time.
Normal Development is NOT “according to who”.
It is according to REALITY.
Norms change slowly over time.
They do not change – just because you wish to pretend they are different.
And things that are harmful – remain harmful – even if we pretend otherwise.
We have a massive epidemic of anxiety and depression running through you progressives.
Particularly women.
That is NOT normal. And it is BAD.
Anxiety and depression are damaging and dangerous.
And of all mental health issues they are by far the best understood and the easiest to cure.
Anxiety and depression are causes by cognative distortion – excessive false negative perceptions of the world.
And they are currect by learning to shut down cognitively distorted negative thoughts.
The spike in anxiety and depression among progressives is proof that progressivism is suffering from cognitive distortion.
Hyper sexualized women portrayed by men shows.
I cant wait for bondage sub story hour. It is important to be accepting of all lifestyles. I wouldn’t have brought my kids of course, that’s insane.
I don’t know why so many young girls are having mental health issues. It is a mystery.
Child abuse.
so can you bring you kid to a brothel or strip show?
Can you sexual abuse you children legally?
Give me a BREAK!
Thank you for being unbiased and honest. I enjoy your columns.
Republican legislators are such hypocrites. They harp and howl about parental rights and letting everyone know that it’s parents who decide what it’s best for their children. But with these laws suddenly the government is interfering with parental rights because they don’t like the idea that parents choose to let their children attend drag shows or reading in drag events. It’s the one component missing from the issue. Those children being “sexualized” as they say are brought to these shows by their parents who are ok with it. You nor I have any say in their decision.
Jon Stewart made a good point on one of his interviews with an Oklahoma legislator. The government won’t lift a finger to protect children from gun deaths because it would infringe on the right to bear arms. But they will readily infringe on the free speech rights of drag performers and parents freedom to choose because they see a need to “protect” children from such views. No child has died from being exposed at a drag show..
The hypocrisy is so stark it’s not even funny. If you are for parental rights then you have on say on parents choosing to take their kids to a drag show or reading in dream event at a local library.
The LGBTQ community is under constant attack by the right and constant denigration. No wonder a trans individual finally had enough and ended up shooting kids and adults in a Christian school with legally purchased weapons. In some way I don’t blame the outcome. The trans community should just start arming themselves with as many grins as they want and open carry or keep their firearms in their purse or garter belt. I would bet Republicans or conservatives would think harder before attacking and denigrating that community if they were armed. They would be defending their right to express themselves and backing that up by being openly or discreetly armed. Strangely conservatives would have a hard time arguing against that.
The ‘parental rights’ crowd is only for parental rights when it comes to THEIR own rights. Not those of the LGBTQ community who are also parents.
I can recall when Svelaz wrote that he was in favor of allowing porn in Junior High School libraries because kids could just find it on the internet anyway. When I was a kid I could see Playboy magazine on display at the store but people then had the common sense to prohibit the purchase of the magazine to people over eighteen years old. Kids can see beer and whiskey on the internet too, does that mean that they should be allowed to consume such substances when they are thirteen years old just because they can see it on the internet. What is really happening is that people like Slavez want kids to see this material so that they can be more easily recruited to accept as mainstream his ideas on his sexual preferences. Slavez says books in school depicting two ten year olds giving blow jobs to each other are just alright with him. Svelaz, we got it. You think that kiddie porn is a-okay.
TiT,
“I can recall when Svelaz wrote that he was in favor of allowing porn in Junior High School libraries because kids could just find it on the internet anyway.”
I can recall that TiT is a big fat liar because that’s not what I said. You’re comparing playboy with beer? LOL! Kids watch far more sexual content in everyday interactions. It’s up to the parents to teach their kids to understand the context or at least let them know where the difference between real pornography and literary art. We’re basically seeing a bunch of prudes like you freak out over nonsense like being exposed to art depicting nude individuals and calling it pornography.
Parent on Florida freaked out over the horror of taking their kids to an art museum where the statue of David was on display. There are statutes baring breast at the Capitol, remember when they covered a statue at the DOJ ? The AG was uncomfortable with bare boobs that he ordered it covered up?
Kids will see what society accepts and they will ask questions. It’s better to explain than to lie to them about why it’s either wrong or ok for something to exist.
TiT, is the consummate liar when it comes to portraying the left.
I wonder how Svelaz feels about people who have an obsession with coprophilia…..excretion or excrement. And if parents took their children to an evening out to a show that featured this, would he defend them.
You bet he would.
That kids can access sexual content all the time is NOT a reason to be pushing it in schools.
Further the graphic novels in Libraries were NOT playboy. They were worse.
In much of the country they would be classified as child porn they had graphic depictions of underage children having sex.
It is unlikely we can today control kids access to sexual content. But that does not mean our schools should be the source.
I want to legalize drugs and sex work.
That does not mean I want teachers giving students drugs in school.
You choose to call some of this “art”. While I think you are a bit deluded – even that does not matter.
There is “art” that is inappropriate for children.
Graphic depictions of children having sex with children do not belong in school.
I am not sure they belong in Art Galleries either.
“There are statutes baring breast at the Capitol” Correct,
There are not statutes of 14yr olds felating other 14 year olds.
“The AG was uncomfortable with bare boobs that he ordered it covered up?”
That was ashcroft 20 years ago at the DOJ – not the capitol.
“Kids will see what society accepts and they will ask questions. It’s better to explain than to lie to them about why it’s either wrong or ok for something to exist.”
Absolutely – and it is PARENTS job – not school teachers.
I would assume that you understand that just because kids ask questions – does not mean that just anyone should be providing them with answers ?
Should schools invite the local pimp in to explain the sex trade to 3rd graders ?
If you are a 20 something trans teacher – go hang out with people your age after school to share your values and life style.
Your JOB as a teacher is NOT to usurp the role of parents – not even from parents who are failing.
That is especially true of 20 somethings who have never had children of their own – and in most cases have no interest in kids.
If you are going to experiment in parenting – do so with YOUR OWN KIDS.
Go look at the people showing up for these protests. Most are people I would not want teaching my kids.
A teaching certificate does not qualify you to be someone else’s kids parent.
“TiT, is the consummate liar when it comes to portraying the left.”
This is one of your stupidest claims.
The right is quite good at portraysing the left .
How can we tell ? Because the left actively outs themselves all over social media.
If you want to know about the people roiting at state capitols – go to the riots at the state capitols.
If you want to know about left wing nut teachers and what is in school libraries – look at what teachers post on TikTock or FB or Twitter, or visit the libraries and find the books.
A major part of the backlash you are seeing is from the Covid lockdowns.
Parents trying to help educate their kids at home got to see the garbage their kids were being taught.
Before they were not paying attention. They presumed this generation of woke idiots educating their kids was little different from the teachers educating them a decade or so earlier.
They learned they were wrong.
Regardless, it is a stupid lie to claim you are being misportrayed.
Even your own arguments here and now – are completely at odds with your arguments before.
TODAY you are arguing that Parents should decide for their Kids – Not government.
Yesterday and tomorow it is Teachers – GOVERNMENT that should be deciding not parents.
No one is misrepresenting you – You control the picture you paint of yourself.
All that is being done is you are being prevented from lying about yourself.
From claiming today that you are not the vile hypocritical liar that YOU showed yourself yesterday.
You want people to beleive you have changed – atleast be willing to say that you have changed.
You tell one set of lies one day and a different the next and then rant that you are being lied about when people notice.
You know, sometimes when I see someone in drag, I’m not so sure they are male. I think the same would be true for children. Most people in drag are more decked out with make up and fancy clothes than actual females are. So, if young kids see someone heavily made up with an elaborate hairdo who is reading them a story or otherwise entertaining them, I seriously doubt that they understand that the person under that makeup and clothes has male genitalia, much less that there’s anything wrong with that. Kids really don’t care who’s reading to them if they’re having fun with story hour, and that’s how it should be. I’m sure that when someone in drag is reading to kids, they are animated in using the voices of various characters in the story to make it more interesting. People in drag that I’ve seen are very entertaining–they sing beautifully, tell entertaining stories and jokes and are a lot of fun. What’s wrong with that?
I would tend to agree with you that issues regarding children should to the greatest extent possible be left with the family the parents.
That Government intervention should be very rare and limited to clear harm to children.
I do not expect parents to make good choices – but Government is ALWAYS worse.
But YOU are being dishonest. You want Teachers to be able to impose drag shows and to sexualize children.
Teachers are not the parent. Further they ARE the government, and Government CAN tell them STOP.
All that said Republicans are NOT being hypocritical – your claim is rooted in an obvious failure to understand what conservatism is.
Conservatism is NOT an ideology. It is a pragmatic understanding of reality.
It is rooted in the FACT that most change FAILS. That the correct DEFAULT position on any randomly selected issue is to do NOTHING. To leave things as they are.
Progressivism is the IDEOLOGY that presumes that nearly all change is good.
It is not. Most change is bad.
While a portion of the positive changes in the world comes from progressivism.
Most of it actually comes from free markets and generally increasing individual freedom.
One of the reasons that we generally leave change to free markets is that failure in markets is only catastrophic when government pushes the markets in one direction and forces them to stay there. Dynamic markets. fail, adjust, try again – until they reach success.
You note that Republican Governors and legislatures should not be seeking to thwart parents.
But Teachers should not be seeking to interfere with parents either.
Of the the two of these – the Republican efforts to re-assert established norms is less dangerous.
Societal changes must be left to free individuals not government.
While you are clearly clueless about corporations. Not only are shareholders the owners – but corporations will not exist without shareholders.
At the same time you are Close to right that – subject to the demands of shareholders – businesses can and must be allowed to do what they wish.
The business problem with the woke ideology is that outside of niche markets it is NOT popular.
The problem with woke business, with ESG, with all the left ideas about business, is not that businesses are not free to adopt these values. It is that those are not sufficiently the values of their customers to succeed, or that the approaches themselves do not succeed.
While many things were wrong with the banks that failed recently – it is inarguably that Woke nonsense made them weaker – not stronger.
When push came to shove – depositors, did NOT say – I will live with a lower return on investment because SVB advances values I support, They said – I can get a 2% higher return elsewhere – goodbye.
With few exceptions public support for the values of the left is weak and only exists when there is no cost.
Free markets are a near perfect system of dynamic continuous ranked choice voting.
We not only must decide WHAT values we support – but how much we will pay for each out of the limited resources we have.
And the values of the left never do well when there is a cost.
In the real world everything comes at a price. We can tell what really matters to people by what they are willing to pay for.
I have no problems with Corporations going Woke. I also have no problems with the Markets abandoning them in response.
What I do NOT want is Government intervening.
We’ve all seen the footage. I dispute that the outfits, if they can be so termed, worn by drag performers are equivalent to those worn by cheerleaders. There seems to be an intentional lack of common sense in this ruling. Another disappointment from a Trump appointee.
A minority believe that human life evolves from the time of convenience. It’s an emotional and capital burden to teach otherwise.
Last days of the Roman Empire
Perhaps. But I hope it’s more like France. And the Deluge is about to begin.
I appreciate your concern here but routinely in gambling casinos across the nation and especially in Los Vegas, children are prohibited from the gambling floor or only allowed to pass through quickly and not linger. I would contest this ruling but I would agree that your could make a better law by improving it’s definition of said behavior and specificity.
I have never seen a drag show and never would and none of my children, while under my care, did either. I also would never take my grand daughter to one.
This desire of people to put these shows on in schools and elsewhere is a deliberate push to expand the roles of behavior that serves no useful purpose in society. Seems to me that the best option is to put these arenas in a specific entertainment center in specific areas and limit them to adults and specify the ages admitted to these centers. Sort of like a permanent adult zoo or carnival. If children can be excluded from certain films then they should be also excluded from these venues.
The right wing faction that is doing this will not be mollified until they force every women to wear a burka. What is wrong with people. Can’t you just leave people that are different than you alone? A LGBTQ+ person is not a threat to you so that you can go to your church and celebrate a man that had his neighbor killed so he could have his wife. Celebrate the girls that got their father drunk so they could have sex with him to have his children. You you can do that, why is it so bad for a man to sleep with a man or a woman with a woman. Or dare I say, a man dress up as a woman with fake breasts. Take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your neighbors.
Bob, you righteous fool, what does an LGBTQ person have to do with a man twerking in front of a 5 year old child? There are millions of gay men and women that are appalled by the need for the left to push this absurdity on our kids. Just last week there was a picture of a grown man dressed as a woman of the street on the lap of a 14 year old child while rubbing against her. What in heaven’s name does this have to do with say a couple like Mayor Pete and his husband? NOTHING. STOP ATTACKING THE KIDS.
When you let kids buy cigarettes or guns then they can go to sexual shows. You are so open minded that your brain fell out. Righteous idiot.
Hullbobby, these children are not there on their own. They are not forced to bet there either,. The acts you describe are only cherry-picked extreme examples. Parents who take their children to these shows know full well what they are doing. They get have a right to choose how they raise their children. Not you or the government. I’m sure you agree with that.
Drag p\performers are not idiots. They modify their acts accordingly when they know children are present and that is still with parents who know and choose to be there with their children. You know, parental rights and all. Right?
You don’t want children being indoctrinated by CRT or leftist ideology? Give parents the right to decide, not government, right? Why can’t parent’s decide whether to let their children attend a drag show or reading in drag if they want to? It seems parental rights are only important when republicans and conservatives decide it is for everyone else.
In general I agree with you that this should be left to parents.
But that is NOT where YOU are much of the time.
I would further note that left or right -= we are NOT mostly that libertarian.
We do not allow parents to have sex with their children.
We do not allow parents to give their children pot or heroine or meth.
We do not allow parents to use their children to produce child porn.
We do not allow parents to share porn with their children.
You can argue – and I might agree that some of these restrictions should pass.
But all but anarcho capitalists will support government thwarting parents having sex or sharing drugs with their kids.
So whether you like it or not SOME government interferance with Parenting is the accepted NORM.
By both the right and the left.
I may agree with you that parents should be able to take kids to drag shows.
But should they also be able to take them to Strip clubs ?
Bars ? Xrated theaters ?
If you are going to attack Republican governors and legislatures,
Why are some of these restrictions on parents OK and others are not ?
I am a pretty extreme libertarain.
I would eliminate all defamation laws.
All regulations on free exchange.
I would repeal our drug laws, our sex crimes laws,
But even I would not bar government from criminalizing sex with children.
Every now and then you make libertarian arguments – such as here.
Btu you are at best a highly selective libertarian – and pretty mcuh only when government is trying to stop you from doing what you want, rather than FORCING you to do something.
You want parents to have the freedom to take children to drag shows without government interferance.
But you also want Teachers – government to be able to bring drag shows into the classroom – without parental interference.
It appears that your objective is to sexualize children by any means – NOT to respect the rights of parents over their children.
“Just last week there was a picture of a grown man dressed as a woman of the street on the lap of a 14 year old child while rubbing against her.”
Well if you saw it on the internet it must be true.
Give me a break, cherry pick an item that may or may not be true to prove your point? Try harder. Repubs cry freedom all the time and then when they pass laws all they do is ban things. Freedom? My Ass. Ban books, ban drag shows, ban men dressing as women. How about banning women from wearing mens clothing like pants?
Stop attacking kids? Uhhhh, I’m pretty sure that would be the book banning, drag show illegal repubs.
If you don’t like drag shows, don’t go and see one. If you don’t want your kids reading a specific book at the library, talk to your kids.
Svelaz and Bob thionk it is fine whatever a parent wants to do with their kids???? Take them to a brothel? Take them to a casino? Try Google. You are either a liar or a laze moron.
Svelaz and Bob think it is fine whatever a parent wants to do with their kids???? Take them to a brothel? Take them to a casino?
If you, as a parent, drops your 10 year old off a the park to play for a couple hours, the govt will take your kid away for bad parenting, but letting the kid participate in adults sexual fetishes, is actual a protected activity for the perverts.
If it’s permissible for our rated movies, to prohibit children, from entering, drag shows are inappropriate for children, and should have the same art label associated with them. Such a labeling should make these laws permissible under our constitution.
My comment should’ve read as follows:
If it’s permissible for R rated movies, to prohibit children, from entering, drag shows are inappropriate for children, and should have the same R label associated with them. Such a labeling should make these laws permissible under our constitution.
Parent’s still decide whether to let their children watch an R rated movie or not. The ratings are only advisory not mandatory.
I agree with Professor Turley and with the ruling. People have a right of Assembly and Free Speech. Local government has the right to decide zoning which can apply, but not outright ban.
I agree that the language of the statute can be tightened, but does a couple have the right to have their kids watch them have sex with a prostitute in their own house? Where does child neglect and endangerment come into play? Can a guy allow his kid to work at the age of 6 in the corner market if both sides are in agreement? We have laws to protect children for a reason.
“I agree that the language of the statute can be tightened, but does a couple have the right to have their kids watch them have sex with a prostitute in their own house?”
Relying on the most extreme examples to make your arguments shows us that your imagination is far more disturbing than reality. Your idea that that’s what kids are being exposed to is evidence that your ignorance is massive.
Svelaz, are there are there not bright line limits? So the “extreme” case I pointed out needs to be answered. Do parents have the right to bring their 5 year old to anything at anytime or not? Can the kid go to a strip club? If not then I guess it is you that is the “Taliban”.
Man, idiots like Svelaz will argue about anything just to be different, even if it means that kids will be harmed. Or else he is just another groomer???
HullBobby,
What is their obsession with hyper-sexualization of 6 year olds?
Their perversions are legendary.
The fact they cannot see the harm in this, and actively defend it, only highlights their disturbed minds and warped sense of morality.
They should be kept away from children.
It is called reductio ad absurdem and it is a valid form of argument.
If you can not differentiate – through the law in this case – why the extreme case is a crime, while what you seek is not.
Then you LOSE.
On any issue where there is an extreme one of two things is true.
Either the extreme must be treated the same as the norm.
i.e if independents are allowed free speech so is
Antifa and Nazi’s.
Or there is a limiting factor that distinguishes between parents having sex in the presence of their children with prostitutes,
Then WHAT is that limiting factor ?
What separates parents having sex with their kids and prostitutes and taking them to a drag show ?
Where is the line and WHY is that the line ?
If you can not explain then there is no line and either both are legal or both are illegal.
You are OBLIGATED to explain why the “extreme” case is different.
If you can’t. Then it is NOT.
This is called LOGIC. And Reductio Ad Absurdem is a standard form of logical argument.
It is NOT a fallacy. It is a VALID argument.
So address it. If you can
In the empty bubble of ideal legal terms, you are correct. What I am asking is there a reason to be concerned for the mental health of these developing children. After all, we have specified warnings on movies etc. because we worried about their impact on the psyche of a child. Are we to overlook that impact just because the prog/left has latched on to these quizlings for the greater purpose of advancing their greater agenda of destroying western civilization?
What about the mental health of kids that are lied to by their parents about a fat man in a red suit climbing breaking into their house to leave presents? Should that be illegal?
That happens in sanctuary States under equity legislation. You may also legally abort, cannibalize, sequester something you deem a “burden”. It’s open season to exercise liberal license to indulge diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism, class-based bigotry).
Bill, in order to attempt to make a lame point compares letting kids enjoy Santa with have a grown wierdo twerk on the lap of a 5 year old.
This is why the left will eschew debates, they cannot win over the hearts and minds of normal people. They can’t debate the border, they can’t debate the crime and bail laws, they can’t debate affirmative action, they can’t debate reparations, they can’t debate giving illegals medicare, they can’t debate trans reading hour for kids, they can’t debate gay books in kindergarten, they can’t debate unlimited money to Ukraine and they can’t debate banning guns.
Bobby prefers his kids be fondled by the pervert in the Santa suit so he makes wild, but unfounded accusations about drag queen story hour. He knows if his kid picks up a book he’s going to be hip to Bobby’s BS and then Bobby’s not gonna have the luxury of hospice at his fabulously gay trans daughters place,
So your saying it fine to lie to your kids about a fat man in a red suite, but not fine for a parent to decide if he wants to take them to a performance where men dress as women.
Your choice. But don’t think every drag show is about men doing a lap dance on a 5 year old. I’m pretty sure that is a rare if ever occurrence.
Do you know the leading cause of death for kids under 18? Guns. How about doing something about an item that actually kills kids.
“Do you know the leading cause of death for kids under 18? Guns. “
One of the problems with such numbers is selectivity which enters the picture. It is problematic for those that do not understand numbers or statistics. They hang onto numbers without looking or understanding what they mean.
I think the actual age group is 1-19. They took out the age of less than 1 because that would mean guns weren’t the cause, and they added a year for the same reason. What about ages up to 17? That changes the pictures, so one has to find out what is unusual about the eldest age groups. I haven’t seen the answer, but I know that youth die of gun violence because they are in gangs, most frequently in Democrat cities with some of the strictest laws.
What will happen if we could stop gang violence in those mostly Democrat cities?
Bill, can you think of the answer? Without checking the numbers, it is quite apparent that your statement would have to be changed, and the leading cause of death would not be guns.
The same misuse of numbers can lead to the following questions.
Do we ban Democrats?
Do we ban areas that have strict gun laws?
That would be as foolish as stretching statistics as you have done. Teenagers, in their late teens, die from engaging in gang activities. What do the leaders of these cities do? Very little for those dying are mostly minorities, and in the lower socio-economic class.
Democrat politicians care about other people who can do favors for themselves, not those that need the most help.
“Do you know the leading cause of death for kids under 18?”
That’s a lie. “Children” means 1-14 (at the outside). The leading cause for that age group is accidents.
“How about doing something about an item that actually kills kids.”
For *teen* deaths, how about doing something about the Leftist politicians (e.g., in Baltimore, Chicago, DC), who are incompetent at their most important job: protecting the innocent from criminals. When you demoralize and defund the police, you have on your hands the blood of those murdered teens.
Like punishing those who murder them?
Ha, ha, funny but misses every target that a rational shooter can hit with his eyes closed.
A fairytale that is openly embraced by the majority and sends a positive message is not the same as overt perversion pushed into the face of pre-sexual children and your use of a strawman indicates that fact. Sane adults know that drag queens are a sexual aberration and do not belong in the general public.
A democratic/dictatorial regime requires people, parents, women to take a knee, bray, “donate”. America’s founders predicted this evolution, and elected a republican form of government with a constitution that was designed to mitigate authoritarian progress of the majority and minority.