Comments by "J" (@jtgd) on "The Wall Street Journal"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@謬 it isn’t. You’re assuming.
There’s a difference between the US Justice department, and the justice department under Putin.
Putin’s opposition ends up either dead, or imprisoned. They quite literally illegalized open opposition to Putin’s war.
Doesn’t mean the US hasn’t used its laws for geopolitical reasons, but let’s not pretend the US justice system and the Russian one are one of the same, or of equal integrity.
You do something Putin doesn’t like, and you’ll literally be in jail charged with whatever crime they want. Doesn’t even matter if it’s true or not, but I’d trust the American legal system before the Russian, considering that I can criticize my president for whatever and NOT end up serving years in prison
How often do we take Russians, arrest them and accuse them of espionage WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE OR PROOF SUPPORTING IT?
But you’ll probably argue that charging someone 10 years over a small quantity of weed is fair because “well, it’s illegal!”, while ignoring the non-natural rate of imprisonment by Judicial authorities
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marshall2.015 because parents can and already have created controversy against school officials over something that actually wasn’t applicable under the law, but the parent believes a 6th grader seeing the Statue of David equates to pornography IN AN ART CLASS.
People criticize it because the wording is so ambiguous, what actually violates the law isn’t objectively specific.
Because it isn’t specific, parents can invoke it, or point to it while claiming “THE LESSON IS PORNOGRAPHIC” just because their kid sees a picture that’s not actually considered porn, and is literally one of the most well known pieces of art in human history.
Doesn’t matter whether Disney cares or not. Doesn’t mean it’s ok for state governors to punish companies because they disagree with what the governors do.
The first amendment applies to companies too, and suggesting free speech suddenly shouldn’t apply to companies that produce media might as well be your argument to weaken the freedom of speech in the constitution.
If Disney approved the law, DeSantis wouldn’t have done anything negative to them, and you probably wouldn’t care. But since it’s the opposite, it’s okay for DeSantis to target companies that dare criticize anything he backs, under threat of financial retaliation.
Now if that’s alright, and a newspaper in Florida criticizes DeSantis, it’s also fine for him to make legislation that increases taxes for that specific business, right?
I really don’t get how you don’t comprehend the actual issue. Has nothing to do with Disney or even DeSantis. It’s a question of whether he did or did not retaliate against a business for criticizing his law he signed.
It’s a first amendment issue, and DeSantis has openly indicated that his actions against Disney was related to their criticism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@likesgymnastics5767 no, if you’d not use mental gymnastics, you’d understand that the law prohibits something that isn’t evidently a notable issue within Florida, and the law’s ambiguous language allows for things not “intended” to be targeted for prohibition as possibly illegal.
That is why concise wording in law is important. “Age appropriateness” isn’t objective. Many people disagree on “which age is appropriate for X”.
The law also allows parents to complain about teachers or administrators violating the law merely based on their own personal opinion, rather than a very specific situation.
It also impacts people regardless of sexuality, but you can clearly see that the justification of the law is based on TikTok videos of a number of teachers on the internet, and not notable cases in Florida
But maybe you do think parents NEED to be warned about middle schoolers seeing the ShOcKiNg depiction of a 500 year old globally famous nude statue made by a historical well known artist, because kids can’t somehow see depictions of David on the internet within a minute.
The law is silly, the words are weak, the examples that supposedly necessitate legislation is few if not 0 cases referenced from Florida that even suggests it’s a problem that can’t be handled locally, without any need for legislation
2
-
2