“More attempts to chill free speech in the ‘free’ State of Florida,” said one Democratic lawmaker.
Man, bigots are the biggest fucking babies. Love to dish it, but can’t take it when someone calls them out for being bigots. They have such a weird fetish for victimization.
As a white person who’s worked in blue collar industries, I’ve often had discussions with other (usually white) co-workers about “why do black people get so upset about the N-word, it’s just a word, you can call me anything you want and I won’t care”.
Through much trial and error, I eventually discovered that “Okay, Colonizer” was a very effective way to challenge that assertion, though it was usually met with “BUT THAT’S DIFFERENT >:{” rather than “Oh, I understand now”. I’m sure “Okay, racist” would have had a similarly potent effect.
The point that I’m getting at here is that this is basically Florida scrambling to protect white fragility. Laws that protect but don’t bind the in group, etc. etc.
It’s less to protect white fragility, and more to censor anyone “woke” from talking about racism — same as banning books, changing history, CRT, etc.
It’s about implementing fascism.
In the era of social media it’s become common for someone’s racism views posted on their personal social media to get forwarded to their professional relationships (employer, clients) leading to fallout, for example.
This is an attempt at stifling that sort of thing. When this first started the people on the receiving end complained about ‘freedom of speech’.
They where told freedom of speech isn’t freedom of consequences.
This is Floridas attempt at getting rid of the consequences by silencing free speech, ironically.
Isn’t truth a complete defense against defamation? As in, if your statement is provably true then it is by definition not defamation (like, this is why the news makes such heavy use of the word “alleged”). So, for example, forwarding someone’s personal social media to their employer couldn’t be defamation, presuming you weren’t claiming someone else’s social media was theirs or something. Always make sure when you dox someone you get the right John Smith, I guess?
Yes, truth is a defense.
The grey area this law attempts to exploit is that terms like ‘racist’ have no absolute definition. The term can be used as a response to anything from ‘i don’t like Indian food’ to ‘Hilters views on the aryan race were right’.
Take the Indian food example. If you were you say that, and I called you a racist for it, is that a matter of opinion on my behalf or a fact that is the basis of a defamation suit?
Ron Desantis is a racist piece of shit.
Sue me motherfucker.
As always, racists care more about being called racists than they do about actual racism, and will do anything and everything in their power to avoid being called a racist.
Anything and everything, other than, you know, not being racists, that is…Ron DeSantis is a racist. Come at me, motherfuckers. I’m not in Florida.
So, the racism is not the problem, being accused of it is the real problem. That tracks with just how awful the cons have become. It seems that every year, they get worse.
I am pretty sure Southpark had an Episode about just that with Randy saying something on a game show…
My nagger
Who wants to take bets on this being marked unconstitutional by a state/federal judge? We keep wasting tax payer money and time on the stupidity that is fucking Desantis
Honestly with how some of these laws go, I’m kinda starting to wonder if a better version of our system might be to have any new law automatically sent to a court process to determine constitutionality before it goes into effect, to stop governments from just kinda spamming blatantly unconstitutional laws and causing trouble before courts get involved to stop each one.
Yarp, and the people who signed said bill/law should be reviewed and possibly automatically impeached to verify if they should be removed from office. It is in their oaths to protect/abide by the constitution, they should know it well enough that it shouldnt be hard to tell mal intent
Edit: I mean imagine someone getting fined $35,000 for calling someone the N word. It would be ludicrous. Yet the idea that if someone accuses you of being someone that uses such speech would get them fined instead is even crazier.
deleted by creator
I mean, laws that conflict with other laws but not the constitution aren’t unconstitutional, and constitutional amendments are passed via a different process than regular laws generally, so I don’t see how it would make amendments any more impossible than now. Similarly, judges already can block laws, so I don’t see how this changes that really, unless some law in our current system is unconstitutional but never challenged. I do see how it might slow things down a little bit, because it adds an extra step for laws to go through before taking effect, and increases the number of court cases though
Hey! Fiscally Responsible Republicans ONLY care about Taxpayer Waste when it’s being used to feed Starving Children! If you want to see these people voted out they should propose feeding Hungry Kids instead!
Heinlein suggested an additional branch of the government similar to Congress with the express mandate of repealing laws and with lower requirements to repeal.
This doesn’t solve the constitutional question. And I’m sure it would be packed with career politicians bouncing from chamber to chamber.
On second thought, taking more fuck heads in government may not be such a good idea.
So to clarify those Nazi’s waving their shit flag outside Disney World, Racists? Not racists?
Because, that’s not really so much of an “accusation” as is it calling them what they are and what they want actually want to be
The fuck your feelings camp sure doesn’t like their feelings being fucked with
It’s even worse than that. Stating an obvious fact about someone isn’t fucking with their feelings.
Now that I think of it, if they embrace the (accurate) label of “domestic terrorists” then why tf do they get their undies all twisted with being labeled racist?
Because they know a lot of people agree with them on individual policy ideas, but if they claim/accept that label in particular, it will alienate the low information people they target.
English only education
Immigration quotas
Policing policy and methods
Incarceration
Tons of other thingsAll of these have racial implications, and a huge swath of “middle America” will buy into specific stances. Their MO is to get them agreeing on anything, and then gradually ramp up the rhetoric to get them to more extreme views.
As a normal looking white guy, it is shocking the number of times people will say borderline racist things to feel you out. Depending on your immediate response, they will either cloak themselves in whatever plausible deniability they built into their initial comment and stop talking to you, or they’ll continue with gradual escalation until you match them, at which point they know they’ve found a kindred spirit.
what if they are racist? do we get to prove that in court now? can someone officially be labeled racist, because hey, i had to prove it wasnt just an accusation, its the truth!
This would be tossed out the first time it’s challenged. It’s entirely for show, as usual.
It’s an election year so they’re throwing crap like this out to play to the victim complex voters.
And this is why you can’t give Nazi’s power. They’ll weaponize “free speech” and the moment they think they can get away with it they’ll shut down opponents speech.
The only thing you do with Nazis is punch them in the nose and make them cry.
The best way to protect a tolerant society is to destroy intolerance without mercy.
Only a bunch of racists would pass a law making it a crime to call them racists. Fucking racists.
Democratic Peoples Republic of DeSantistan
I would be fine to let Florida and Texas become their own countries (with anyone who wants to stay in the US being given a substantial subsidy to move elsewhere).
I’ve ever had this thought. The problem is that over time people would be born into those places, and educated into being terrified of other places and “consensual” to their ongoing abuse, and that wouldn’t be at all okay.
So kind of like how it is now?
Yes, only significantly more so.
Sounds like a bunch of racists
I’m of two minds about reporting this sort of thing.
On one hand, it’s a fucking joke. State legislators can submit any damned bill they please. Shit like this has 0% of even coming to a vote. It’s performative for the hometown voters.
OTOH, heysus christos, this is batshit insane and should see the light of day.
You left out “never” in that last sentence
I think they meant “it should be brought to light” that this bill exists
Maybe so
