Ben Shapiro continues to lie about Florida's new anti-gay bill. On his podcast today, he claimed that the bill prohibits exclusively (1) the teaching of homosexuality or gender identity to (2) children in grades K-3. Both are lies, as anyone who simply reads the bill can see.
The bill does not merely ban "teaching" about homosexuality or gender identity; it bars teachers from "encourag[ing] classroom discussion" of the topic—an intentionally vague and over-broad rule that could prohibit a teacher from simply mentioning their same-sex spouse.
Moreover, the bill does not apply solely to grades K-3, as Shapiro insists.
For grades K-3, it imposes an absolute ban.
For grades 4-12, it bars teachers from discussing LGBTQ people or issues in a manner that is "not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate."
What qualifies as "encourag[ing] classroom discussion" about LGBTQ people in a manner that's "not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate"? The bill does not say. This is another vague and over-broad standard designed to gag teachers from mentioning LGBTQ stuff at all.
The only way anyone can learn what counts as "age-appropriate" discussion is for a parent to file a ruinous lawsuit against a teacher who allegedly "encourag[ed] classroom discussion" of LGBTQ issues.
Teachers will self-censor under the threat of such suits. That's the point.
Shapiro said today: "I'm just wondering why what I said is remotely controversial."
The bill he describes is simply not the bill that exists. He is lying about what it says. It applies to all grades, not just K-3. It is right there in the plain text.
If you ever read or listen to legal commentary about legislation, and the commentator does not quote the text of the bill directly, you should probably assume they're lying.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨Rejecting decades of precedent, Trump Judge Lee Rudofsky holds Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has NO private right of action—meaning nobody except the U.S. Attorney General can bring a VRA lawsuit.
A majority of the Supreme Court has previously found a private right of action in Section 2 of the VRA, but Rudofsky rejects that reasoning and instead agrees with Gorsuch and Thomas, who suggested that no right exists.
This could tee up a death blow to what remains of the VRA.
If SCOTUS agrees with Rudofsky, then ONLY the attorney general can bring lawsuits against racial gerrymanders and voter suppression under the Voting Rights Act.
The AG has limited resources, and for decades private plaintiffs have filed VRA lawsuits. Rudofsky wants to end that.
Great @Timodc piece on Florida Republicans' horrific effort to force gay teachers into the closet—and punish children of same-sex parents by gagging them from talking about their families at school. The GOP assault on gay equality never actually stopped. thebulwark.com/desantis-shapi…
If Florida's Don't Say Gay bill passes, a public school teacher could be sued for merely mentioning their same-sex spouse in the classroom. This legislation is a degrading attack on the dignity of gay Floridians and their kids. It's genuinely frightening. slate.com/news-and-polit…
It has been fascinating to watch Republicans attempt to brand DeSantis as a lover of liberty when he continually supports sweeping censorship of free speech and association. Cruelly punishing gay teachers and children of same-sex couples does not sound like liberty to me.
Republicans passed these laws for the sole purpose of suppressing votes, and they succeeded: Up to 40% of voters in some Texas counties have had their ballots rejected.
Yet the GOP and conservative media had a full-scale meltdown when anyone called them “voter suppression laws.”
Like literacy tests, today’s voter suppression laws are neutral on their face.
Like literacy tests, they are defended as minor burdens to safeguard “election integrity.”
Like literacy tests, their purpose and effect is to suppress votes. And they are often quite successful.
New voting restrictions in Texas and Georgia exemplify the “second-generation barriers” that RBG warned about: pointless administrative burdens that confuse and deter voters without *openly* discriminating on the basis of race or political association. slate.com/news-and-polit…
This is nuts. Anti-vaxxers shopped their case to TWELVE different district courts before they found one corrupt enough to stop the president from issuing a mandate for *his own workforce.* Now the 5th Circuit rewards them again. Depraved and lawless stuff. slate.com/news-and-polit…
It was, of course, a Trump judge who looked at the previous 12 court orders refusing to block Biden’s vaccine mandate for his own workforce and said, “actually, they were all wrong, and I’m right.” And of course he issued a nationwide injunction. It’s just unbelievably corrupt.
If this Trump judge is right (he isn’t) then a huge number of regulations governing employees of the executive branch are illegal—including a ban on heroin use outside of the office and ethics rules barring former employees from lobbying their old bosses. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Second, from @imillhiser, explaining how Kavanaugh's novel theory of the Purcell principle "would strip the federal judiciary of much of its power to protect voting rights" by creating new burdens on plaintiffs "that may be impossible to overcome." vox.com/2022/2/8/22922…
Reading these two excellent pieces together really drives home how insincere, duplicitous, and illogical Kavanaugh's opinion was—it's seven straight pages of bad faith dressed up in rhetoric that screams "I'm so reasonable! I'm so principled!" Don't buy it. He's lying.
The NC State Board of Elections declared in a motion that it has the "authority to police which candidates should or should not be disqualified per Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The board says it can disqualify Madison Cawthorn if he "engaged in insurrection."
This filing confirms that the North Carolina State Board of Elections is prepared to investigate Madison Cawthorn and remove him from the 2022 ballot if it concludes that he facilitated the Jan. 6 attack. It's a big deal.
Predictably, the North Carolina State Board of Elections also disagrees with Cawthorn that an 1872 law granting amnesty to former Confederates somehow exonerates him, too.