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.
It’s a bit tiring that every single infringement on people’s rights to exist has to be combatted via 1A because the only thing that trumps dAsTaRdLy BeHaViOr In FrOnT oF cHiLdReN is free speech.
Is that literally the only framework US law sees? Can’t it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they’re hateful bigots?
Bigoted speech is itself free speech. It’s fundamentally important that the law doesn’t make subjective judgement calls like this on what views are good or bad precisely because it protects the minority.
It’s a bit tiring that every single infringement on people’s rights to exist has to be combatted via 1A because the only thing that trumps dAsTaRdLy BeHaViOr In FrOnT oF cHiLdReN is free speech.
Is that literally the only framework US law sees? Can’t it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they’re hateful bigots?
Of course not, because that would violate their 1A rights to be hateful bigots.
Bigoted speech is itself free speech. It’s fundamentally important that the law doesn’t make subjective judgement calls like this on what views are good or bad precisely because it protects the minority.