Posted on 11/29/2023 3:38:20 PM PST by fwdude
The U.S. Supreme Court recently halted Florida’s “Protection of Children Act,” a law designed to prevent children from attending sexually explicit live performances, including drag shows.
This ruling, coming after a federal district court sided with an Orlando drag bar, Hamburger Mary’s, marks a significant setback in efforts to safeguard minors from potentially harmful content.
SB 1438, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, criminalizes allowing children to witness sexually explicit live performances.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
There is NO FREE SPEECH for children, idiots!!!!
Wow. The two justices with younger children. Terrible.
So, why are there still movie ratings? Pg13/r/ma/X. Down the 🚽
can they say age appropriate?
Country continues its descent into hell…
So pass a law that reflects the language of the motion picture industries movie ratings and see how the dipshits in the SC tackle that one.
Well, I want Scotus to make decisions based on law, not their personal family situations.
What are the actual circumstances of the case? You kind of need to know before flying off the handle.
How does Traitor Roberts hold so much sway over the weak Amy and the personal pick of Kennedy?
The Supreme Court will end up being ignored and disregarded in the near future by most Americans, and it will be that wzy because of decisions like this.
The same way most Catholics now ignore advisments of Pope Francis. The disconnect will become obvious.
Its amazing what Fed.gov can get away with in terms of controlling social media, promoting media as propaganda organs, or collecting/skimming data from US citizens on-line activities - no dispute about “free speech” there
But try to keep perverts away from children even under very limited circumstances - and suddenly, everyone is a “free speech” maximalist.
It wouldn't be effective because parents can already take their children into an R-rated movie, just like the cross-dressing shows.
1st Amendment based ruling?
Can you read? Without pictures?
All those years of court battling in lawsuits and appeals over books and movies with “redeeming value” or not and now children cannot be protected from obvious filth?
I stand in awe every day at God’s patience that these people aren’t publicly and dramatically hit by bolts of lightening from a clear, blue sky.
Rape boy Kavanaugh and Amy Conehead Barrett ride to the rescue. I still remember how conservative swooned for Barrett and her blank notebook. And for Kavanaugh against Blasey Ford.
A-holes.
So, who pushes the US into CWII? POTUS, Congress, Antifa, BLM, Hamas, or the SCOTUS??
Every institution in the country is captured by the Left, including the Supreme Court.
EMERGENCY DOCKET
Court refuses Florida’s request to reinstate anti-drag law
...
When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit declined to put Presnell’s order on hold to the extent that it applies beyond Hamburger Mary’s, the state came to the Supreme Court on Oct. 19, asking the justices to do so while its appeal of Presnell’s ruling moves forward.
Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker told the justices that Presnell’s order sweeps too broadly: He blocked the state from enforcing the anti-drag law anywhere in Florida, when he could have simply entered an order barring any prosecution of Hamburger Mary’s. Presnell’s order, Whitaker wrote, “inflicts irreparable harm on Florida and its children by purporting to erase from Florida’s statute books a law designed to prevent the exposure of children to sexually explicit live performances.”
...
In a brief order on Thursday afternoon, the justices turned down the state’s request. In his statement, Kavanaugh noted that although the state “strongly disagrees” with the district court’s conclusion that the law violates the First Amendment, Florida “does not raise that issue” in its filings in the Supreme Court. Instead, Kavanaugh noted, the state was simply seeking to be able to enforce the law against entities that are not a party to the litigation. Whether district courts have the power to enter an order that bars the government from enforcing a law against non-parties is “an important question that could warrant our review in the future,” Kavanaugh acknowledged. But because of the context in which the question arises – a First Amendment case contending that a law sweeps too broadly – this case is an “imperfect vehicle” to consider the procedural question, Kavanaugh concluded, and the court was therefore correct to deny review.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/court-refuses-floridas-request-to-reinstate-anti-drag-law/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.