Florida Bill Would Jail Minors For Posting Pictures Of Anything Resembling a Gun

[Weatherman2020]

It’s 1984 and the thought police are in control.

Anyone voting for this should be tarred and feathered.

Florida Bill Would Outlaw Minors Posting Gun Photos on Social Media | National Review

 

[The Professor]

Florida state senator Jason W. B. Pizzo (D), who introduced the Bill, needs immediate therapy. Fortunately, he will never find sufficient support to have the bill passed. What bothers me is how anyone could even think such nonsense.

The proposed legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Pizzo is a lawyer and should know better.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The rider on the bill would reward pictures of the live-in unemployed boyfriend shooting up heroin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Florida state senator Jason W. B. Pizzo (D), who introduced the Bill, needs immediate therapy. Fortunately, he will never find sufficient support to have the bill passed. What bothers me is how anyone could even think such nonsense.

The proposed legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Pizzo is a lawyer and should know better.

Prof......did you use 'think' in response to a Democrat plan????

The two are syncretic.

"New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun..."
The law states that if provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both."
New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun, sponsor denies that would happen



Nobody read '1984'???????

 

[LeftofLeft]

Florida state senator Jason W. B. Pizzo (D), who introduced the Bill, needs immediate therapy. Fortunately, he will never find sufficient support to have the bill passed. What bothers me is how anyone could even think such nonsense.

The proposed legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Pizzo is a lawyer and should know better.

Prof......did you use 'think' in response to a Democrat plan????

The two are syncretic.

"New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun..."
The law states that if provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both."
New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun, sponsor denies that would happen



Nobody read '1984'???????

This would violate "free speech".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Florida state senator Jason W. B. Pizzo (D), who introduced the Bill, needs immediate therapy. Fortunately, he will never find sufficient support to have the bill passed. What bothers me is how anyone could even think such nonsense.

The proposed legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Pizzo is a lawyer and should know better.

Prof......did you use 'think' in response to a Democrat plan????

The two are syncretic.

"New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun..."
The law states that if provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both."
New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun, sponsor denies that would happen



Nobody read '1984'???????

This would violate "free speech".

I know this post of yours is tongue-in-cheek......Democrats don't believe in free speech.


Our Muslim President put an anti-free speech person on the Supreme Court...
"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia





“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?

 

[K9Buck]

And when minorities are found to be inordinately violating the law by posting gun pics on social media, the Democrats will then call for the law to be repealed.