Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Ron Desantis Just Went Full Dan Crenshaw With HB269" video.

I've tried to explain to people defending it that it's one of those laws you'll love while you're in power and hate once you aren't any more.
11
@InherentlyFree It's the vague language using offended instead of spelling it out. It means if I go onto your property and say ANYTHING you don't like I can be arrested, prosecuted, and stripped of my rights for the rest of my life. The complaint is fliers being spread around neighborhoods. If my flier blows onto your property, I lose my rights. Harrassment and all that is already illegal with hate crime laws that can attach to it. As a Christian, I go in a neighborhood to spread the word and someone is offended, I'm off to prison. It's one of those laws people think are fine when they're in power and scream bloody murder against when they aren't anymore and it's used against you. Edit: Example would be a Soros prosecutor in a big city, which have been elected in Florida. I put out fliers saying a meeting of Republicans is happening at a time and place. A black person says that's a racist attack because Republicans are racists. The prosecutor takes the case and runs with it. It's extremely shortsighted and under a naive belief that it won't be abused.
5
Well that I understand. Colleges are federally and state funded and as such are seen as an extension of the government. It would be looked at as a defacto embargo by the government. They aren't independent bodies operating in the ether. That's why the Constitution applies to them. Allowing them to do even that sets a precedent for them to act on other things ignoring federal and state laws and regulations. Edit: You only think it's bad because you supported the embargo. I bet you don't support colleges regulating "hate speech", but both are examples of the same thing. Trade agreements are set by the federal government. Everything that falls under the federal government has to abide by those agreements legally just like they have to abide by the Constitution.
2
Vandalism and intimidation are already illegal with a possible hate crime addition. If something you don't like just blows onto your property you can prosecute someone for it. So if your flier from Church blows onto a neighbor's lawn and they don't agree with what's said in it, you can face prosecution.
2
I seriously doubt that. Sister city stuff is signed in foreign countries all the time.
1
That depends on what that "help" is. There are Good Samaritan laws that protect would be helpers in an emergency situation like an accident. The "help" they're referring to is mental and parents should be notified if they're child is in mental distress. The concern would be abuse situations, but unless that's been proven they don't have the authority to remove a parents rights based on a suspicion. That's always been true and it's always required going through the proper legal process. They weren't crying about the legal process before but now it's a problem? I don't think so. It's just a talking point.
1
@justifiably_stupid4998 There are already laws that protect private property from this. Even hate laws. It expands that or it wouldn't exist. Edit: So looked into it. Putting a flier on a telephone pole in a neighborhood isn't private property and that would fall under this. Add in the extremely vague language and it's a hate speech bill which the Supreme Court has ruled hate speech doesn't exist in US law. If it's challenged, and it absolutely should be, it won't make it past legal review. That means the entire bill is struck down, not just the one clause. So if the rest of the bill is important than this looks like an intentional sabotage of it.
1
You can't "give way" on my first amendment rights. It's a hate speech law which the Supreme Court has ruled a couple of times doesn't exist. There's no way for this to look good for him when it's brought before the court.
1