Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm trying to understand what is problematic. My liberal self is unable to see it reading the bill. Not allowing teachers or material to openly endorse racism, which is the TL;DR of what it does and I have posted both the full text and the portion containing what is banned, seems good to me.

We've gone from objecting to fictional book bans to to 'okay, it doesn't, but it's bad because it regulates speech', but we don't want to toss out every other law regulating what is taught in schools, so now 'it's just vague' is the argument?

It was not long ago that the left would have loved this bill, because it treats the races and sexes the same and bans discrimination, while specifically stipulating that African American achievement be taught. But now, because it bans advocating racism in the classroom towards any race without a carve out for a particular race, it is wrong and terrible.

I have first amendment concerns on every education bill, but if there is no actual argument against this bill specifically, I cannot see how it should be treated any different than the thousands of others on the books regulating teaching.

Take a glance through the opinion striking it down as applied to universities. I haven't read them but I imagine there are amicus briefs explaining people's concerns as well. And again, look what people from the Governor on down are saying the intent is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

LOL Kim is getting a lot of grief these days.

https://time.com/6225926/banned-book...l-race-theory/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Take a glance through the opinion striking it down as applied to universities. I haven't read them but I imagine there are amicus briefs explaining people's concerns as well. And again, look what people from the Governor on down are saying the intent is.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

You would be surprised how many laws are not crystal clear on their face, and how often legislative history comes in as a guide to interpretation.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You would be surprised how few laws are crystal clear on their face, and how often legislative history comes in as a guide to interpretation.

Even if the text of the law was not how the law actually worked and the Governor could use a law after the fact to ban whatever he doesn't like or thinks it should have banned instead of what it actually does, if 54-57 and 63-67 are 'critical race theory', how does this even come into play? If these parts you chose as getting into critical race theory are the problem, what's the issue with them? If Critical Race Theory means teaching that one race is superior to others or that members of other races should be discriminated against for things in the past they were not alive for, why would this be a thing we want to teach and advocate anyways? If your objection is solely on grounds of speech, do you feel this should be legal to teach with any race being the one labelled the race that should not receive adverse treatment, and any race being the one instructed to receive adverse treatment?

That you can't really find anything in the law to object too should be telling that maybe one should set aside the partisan narratives.

[Peter_Spaeth]

i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.

So your objection is to political narratives, and nothing actually in the law at all?

That was my original point. It’s rage bait for both sides, the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So your objection is to political narratives, and nothing actually in the law at all?

That was my original point. It’s rage bait for both sides, the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

We should both read the opinion and amicus briefs to understand better the specific objections to the language. I do think parts of it are vague and arguably could be construed to support certain actions, but at the same time I agree with you that there isn't anything blatant on its face, at least as I read it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.

+1. Banning this book is stupid, imo.

[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

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/u...n-studies.html