Thread by @Geoffrey_Wardle

I had hoped that some were right and that Winder’s bills SB1187 and SB1188 were just a gambit to give the RW something they wanted and to get to Sine Die. I am wrong. /1 #idleg #1stAmendment

After thinking about SB1187 and SB1188 and rereading them and after evaluating them, are far worse than I had initially thought. /2 #idleg

Let’s look more closely at the dog’s breakfast Sen. Winder has served up “because things changed” in SB 1187 /3 #idleg legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/upl…

SB1187 amends Idaho Code 18-1515, Idaho’s prohibition on disseminating material harmful to minors. It makes minor textual revisions, adding video to the list of media, changing “which” for “that”, updates for mobile media. Fine, those changes are innocuous. /4 #idleg

Idaho already prohibits the creepy pervy guy from disseminating material harmful to minors, so this is no real change. /5 #Idleg

A violation of Idaho Code 18-1515, however is subject to Idaho Code 18-1517, which provides a variety of defenses, including the defendant thought the minor was over 18, the defendant was the minor’s parent, the minor was accompanied by a parent /6 #idleg

or the defendant is “a bona fide school, college, university, museum or public library, or was acting in his capacity as an employee of such.”/7 #idleg

BUT, now the amendment to 18-1517 requires that those “bona fide” institutions must have adopted “policies to protect minors from harmful materials” /8 #idleg

Now a drafting note, because words have meaning. Winder now introduces the term “harmful materials” into Idaho Code 18-1517 and into the new section Idaho Code 33-141, but does not define that term. The term in 18-1515 is “material harmful to minors”. /9

So, really, they ought to define the term and use it consistently. #idleg /10

And what is “material harmful to minors” under the proposed amendment to 18-1515: #idleg /11

“any picture, photograph, video, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body that depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse and that is harmful to minors”. #idleg /12

So 18-1515 is pretty circular in its definition material harmful to minors, is anything that has nudity that is harmful to minors. But it gets worse. /13

18-1517 will require the adoption of policies “to protect minors from harmful materials” for the defense to be available to libraries, schools or museums. #idleg /14

33-141 sets forth the policies that are to be adopted to trigger the protection of 18-1517. But what are those policies? They are policies “to ensure that the institution . . . are not violation of Section 18-1515” #idleg /15

Which means that there is now, the recognition that schools, libraries, museums etc. had bona fide reasons for possessing and displaying materials, paintings, sculptures that had nudity have no defense. /16

As written, if there is nudity, then you are only protected by having policies that eliminate the nudity from the view of minors. #idleg /17

And the “citizen review committee” it is now much worse than what had been presented. 33-141 now deems sex crimes police officers as an expert to opine on the propriety of the art. #idleg /18

33-141 now deems “one (1) representative from the religious community in the community” as an expert to opine on the propriety of the art. #idleg /19

But it gets worse. Let’s turn to SB 1188. #idleg /20 legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/upl…

Now another drafting note, if you are going to create certain obligations for certain institutions, you have to be consistent. Winder’s bills are not internally consistent, which creates future problems. /21

SB1188 doesn’t stop with “a bona fide school, college, university, museum or public library,” as set forth in SB 1187, ow now, it now adds to the list of “person, firm, or corporation” who can be enjoined from distributing “material harmful to minors” /22

not just “school, college, university, museum, public library,” but also “public health district, taxing district, political subdivision of this state” in 18-1520. /23 #idleg

All of those can be enjoined in “selling, distributing, or promoting materials harmful to minors” and the court is authorized “to direct the seizure and destruction of the same”. /24

Now there is some prohibition on seizure and destruction if it is being offered to non minors, but, if anything, this shows how poorly drafted Idaho law is. #idleg /25

So a grandstanding local prosecutor, has the ability merely because of any depiction of nudity to seek to enjoin a local museum from displaying David by Michelangelo, or the Venus di Milo, or the Kiss by Rodin, or countless Picassos, /26 #idleg

or the public health department from disseminating public health materials on sexually transmitted diseases, or the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare from disseminating materials on reproductive health to mothers. /27 #idleg

Can you see such a grandstanding local prosecutor demanding that David be seized and destroyed? Absolutely. That is some major Taliban action right there. #idleg /28

And, by including “public health district, taxing district, political subdivision of this state” the safe harbor that has presently existed in 18-1517 does not exist for those entities, because they are not listed. #idleg /29

Moreover, the formation of a committee of parents to review materials and develop policies, is not tied to that, either. #idleg /30

So what do we really have here? Poorly drafted bills, that create confusion, that are circular, that destroy the status quo, that empower only the most radical, that create a mechanism for the most radical to hijack, and that interfere with public health. #idleg /31

No amount of amending to remove colleges and universities will save these bills from their legislative shortcomings. This is bad and no one is stopping it. #idleg #1stAmendment /32

Fortunately, these bills are sufficiently vague and sufficiently unconstitutional that it is unlikely that they will be enforced, but yet again, we the taxpayers get to pay to fund the state of Idaho losing in court for its unconstitutional over reach. #idleg #1stAmendment /33

We don't believe you "just want the books moved to a more appropriate section." You lie. #firstamendment #idleg /34

And with the amendment to 18-1520 and 1521 in SB1188 do you know who else it impacts? The private sector as any “entity that within the last five years . . . Received a tax rebate” is subject to those provisions, i.e. anyone who got a tax refund last year #idleg /35

Your kids bring their friends over after school and show them the book you bought at the Orsay? Well if their parents are “concerned citizens” and have a willing RWNJ prosecutor and a grandstanding judge you are potentially subject to having it seized and destroyed #idleg /36

Your kids bring their friends over after school and show them the replica of David? Well if their parents are “concerned citizens” and have a willing RWNJ prosecutor and a grandstanding judge you are potentially subject to having it seized and destroyed #idleg /37

Your kids bring their friends over after school and show them the copy Picasso you bought? Well if their parents are “concerned citizens” and have a willing RWNJ prosecutor and a grandstanding judge you are potentially subject to having it seized and destroyed #idleg /38

I don’t know who helped Winder write SB1188 but they are neither versed in legislative drafting nor are they very skillful in their attempt to interject their beliefs into regulation. #idleg /39

The fact is they cut and pasted language from their amendment to 18-1520 into 18-1521 that has no bearing upon what 1521 regulates, demonstrating a rush job that doesn’t contemplate the consequences of what is being done. #idleg /40

What rules or regulations do entities that receive tax rebates or incentives need to have preempted. #idleg /41

And the inclusion of “tax incentives” leads me to believe that this could be weaponized by the rwnjs to criminalize the mere hosting of data at data centers that received tax incentives. #idleg /41