[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh I've heard plenty of opinions and concerns about the bill (almost none of which relate to the actual text). I have already said I have strong constitutional doubts about this bill (as I do essentially every education law that effectively mandates certain speech instead of other speech, even if it is speech I find vile), you don't need to convince me of that because I already think it. What is your objection, or anyone else's here, specifically? If you don't object to all bills regulating what is and is not taught, as I lean towards doing, and you don't disagree with its specific stipulations, it's just that lines 51-83 are too vague? If this law is so problematic, it should be very, very easy to specifically show what clauses one finds bad. If one's objection is to political narrative swirling about a law and not anything in the actual law itself, one might want to step back and not fall for the rage bait.

The Governor does not dictate what a bill does, the text does. When my Governor says something that is not in the bill is, it doesn't become law because he says it to his base. DeSantis sells it to his base as a much bigger conservative win than the law actually is, as every politician does. Just as the media articles in this thread twist and distort and flat out lie about it. They don't determine reality. We all know the text of the law is paramount, and while legislative intent can be looked at in edge cases and under specific circumstances, we are a nation of actual, documented laws and these laws determine what is and is not illegal, not the whim of any governor, as much as DeSantis and Newsom and 48 others might wish otherwise.

right and the bill names shows the spin or if its not the bill name its how the media portrays it like 'inflation reduction act' (where the nickname for that one) or dont say gay bill (i didnt know that was the bill name) etc