All Activity

Your acting as if public screening R rated movies doesn't exist. Not quite. I am saying the comparison to R-rate movies does not really work here. Florida Statute § 847.013: Prohibits knowingly exhibiting, selling, renting, or-providing paid admission for minors to view motion pictures, shows, or representations depicting nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or abuse that is "harmful to minors". Violations are generally first-degree misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail. Florida Statute § 847.012: Criminalizes selling, renting, loaning, or distributing materials defined as harmful to minors to a child under 18. I think this is an example of the "not as bad as" fallacy, or the "fallacy of relative privation" or "appeal to worse problems" or the "starving children in Africa" argument. It happens when someone tries to dismiss a problem or complaint just because a worse problem exists somewhere else. You seem to be suggesting that until and unless I first express concern about this or that other social ill, it is not legitimate for me to speak about the one under discussion here. I respectfully do not agree with that proposition. Thanks, -Smac

My original post was based on a news item, for which I provided a link. That news item quoted Gov. DeSantis, but it also stated: "Critics have argued the measure could be used to crack down on certain drag performances and chill free expression." Overall, I thought the article did a good job of clinically describing the news item at hand. This misconstrues both the legal background of this case and what this particular law actually changes in Florida. Could you elaborate? What am I misconstruing? I was not parroting Gov. DeSantis. I was expressing my own viewpoint, which happens to be similar to his. Existing laws in Florida include: Fla. Stat. § 847.013 — Exposing minors to harmful shows and exhibitions Fla. Stat. § 800.04(7) — Lewd or lascivious exhibition before a person under sixteen Fla. Stat. § 847.011(4) — Obscene live performances Fla. Stat. § 847.0133 — Showing obscene material to a minor Fla. Stat. § 800.03 — Exposure of sexual organs Fla. Stat. § 847.012 — Harmful material distributed to minors Fla. Stat. § 827.071 — Sexual performances by children and child pornography Fla. Stat. § 796.07 — Places operated for “lewdness” Fla. Stat. § 823.05 — Public nuisances involving lewdness or illegal conduct Fla. Stat. § 877.03 — Disorderly conduct and breach of the peace ... I would say the closest real-world parallel to Fla. Stat. § 827.11 — Exposing children to an adult live performance is Fla. Stat. § 847.013 — Exposing minors to harmful shows and exhibitions. Okay. Thank you for this list, and for the comparison between 827.11 and 847.013. I asked Grok to compare the two: What are your thoughts about this? Do you think the earlier statute was sufficient to cover drag shows? Way back in the day I clerked for a judge in Tacoma who heard an interesting criminal case about a guy manufacturing meth. He had been pulled over in his truck, the bed of which was full of boxes containing jars filled with alcohol and a white sludge at the bottom, which turned out to be powdered Sudafed tablets. My recollection is that everyone, including the criminal defense attorney, agreed that the only possible purpose for having jars full of alcohol with powdered Sudafed was to make meth, which is a controlled substance. However, the criminal statute in place at the time only criminalized the production of a controlled substance, which had not yet happened (since there was no meth or other controlled substances in the truck, just a bunch of pseudoephedrine, which is not a controlled substance). The criminal defense attorney argued that the statute - as worded - only criminalized the completion of "production," not interim steps are are incrementally headed that way. He also contrasted Washington's statute with Idaho's, which did criminalize both "production" and "taking a substantial step towards the production" of controlled substances. The judge agreed with the criminal defense attorney and dismissed the case. The prosecutor was not happy, but the judge noted that criminal statutes are often refined by these sorts of developments, which eventually filter up to the legislature so that they can fill in the gaps. Another example: Years ago I worked with a criminal defense attorney in Utah. He came back from a hearing and said that he had succeeded in getting serious criminal charges against my client dismissed. The criminal statute in question was sort of complex, but basically criminalized physical contact between an adult's mouth, genitals or hands with any part of a minor's genitals or anus. However, there was one combination that the legislature had left out, namely, an adults mouth to a minor's anus. This was precisely what the police had charged the defendant, and the statute did not criminalize it, so the defendant effectively got away with it. It is my understanding that in both instances the state legislatures have either amended existing statutes or enacted new ones to address the foregoing "gaps" in what the criminal statutes cover. I think something similar happened in Florida. I think what is illegitimate and imaginary is Ron DeSantis's claim, which you parrotted, that this particular law shouldn't even be controversial, and the implication that his political oponents are against "limiting minors access to sxualized events." I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you think the statute is controversial or not? I don’t have an absolute rule. I can imagine sufficiently extreme sexual conduct where the state would be justified in overriding parental consent. Fair enough. Can you allow for principled departure from your position on this? Is it possible and reasonable that citizens and their legislative representatives might prefer to not limited constraints to only "sufficiently extreme sexual conduct"? I would be interested in hearing what you feel these "real questions" are. But isn't this what the legislative process is for? To make judgment calls about "whether Florida's existing laws" were sufficient to address whether children should be allowed to view highly sexualized live adult performances? As for "whether § 827.11 makes Florida a better place to live and raise a family," I think it does. You (apparently?) do not. Again, isn't that what the legislative process does all the time? Just as I don't think Florida needs redundant laws, I don't think other states need them, either. Okay. I think we just disagree about redundancy, as I think the statutes overlap but still have some material differences. Criminal statutes are regularly created or refined to address more particularized behaviors. I don't think anyone has made "the suggestion that, before § 827.11, Florida was helpless to protect children from sexually inappropriate live entertainment." Again, criminal statutes are amended or created all the time to more specifically address particularized behaviors. As noted above, § 827.11 seems to cover ground that other statutes did not, or did not cover with clarity and concision. I believe the importance of a topic like this should depend, at least in part, on how much actual harm it causes individuals and society. Okay. Is it possible that exposing children to highly sexualized live adult performances causes "actual harm" to individuals and/or society? Do you think legislatures and societies are obligated to wait until "actual harm" accrues and becomes a very serious problem before taking steps to legislative mitigate it? Can it be reasonable and appropriate for legislatures to take reasonable preemptive steps to avoid the "actual harm" before it actually harms society and individuals? I have previously posted a number of news items about children being exposed to highly sexualized behaviors at drag shows, "Pride" parades, and so on. A sampling: SF Cop Says Nudity Around Kids is OK at Pride Parade Graphic “Pride” Parades Attacking the Innocence of Children San Francisco Pride Parade features public nudity around kids, 'Fetish Zone' with urine Why drag queen performances are not appropriate for children Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance Pride Month Jumps the Shark Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ Dallas Club Investigated After Drag Show for Kids Why Drag Events for Kids Are Inappropriate—And Actually Work Against the LGBT Community Children to experience sexual content at "Drag the kids to pride" (video included) Not for children! A lot of the events in the foregoing links involve quite a bit more than “a hip thrust or two” or “bare-chested men who wouldn’t have been out of place at a Madonna concert.” What "made-up" incidents are you referring to here? We have had all sorts of discussions about bishops who have abused children while acting in that capacity. Given the size of the Church, the number of actual incidents is statistically tiny, but does that mean that the Church can therefore safely disregard the issue, take not remedial efforts to mitigate risks, etc.? Also, is it ever appropriate for a legislature to anticipate, and preemptively take steps to curb or avoid, "widespread threats to children" before they actually materialize? Also, is it possible that the legislature in Florida decided that the exposure of children to highly sexualized adult live performances was sufficiently "widespread" as to warrant a statutory response? I think this is an example of the "not as bad as" fallacy, or the "fallacy of relative privation" or "appeal to worse problems" or the "starving children in Africa" argument. It happens when someone tries to dismiss a problem or complaint just because a worse problem exists somewhere else. Well, yes. Legislators may well be incentivized to pass laws that they think will please their constituencies. We live in a pluralistic society, so there are differences of opinions. Some people may indeed have "beliefs and cultures" in which it is acceptable to expose children to highly sexualized live adult performances (if you would like to identify these, feel free). Other people, meanwhile, have "beliefs and cultures" which find that unacceptable. We generally let the democratic process govern such differences. That said, the result is that legislatures pass laws to be enforced by the State and by law enforcement. Previously you said that the new statute was unnecessary/redundant because preexisting statutes were already sufficient to address the issue. Do you characterize those statutes as "tak{ing} away parents rights"? Here you seem to be saying that the statute amounts to "new exercises of state power," which would seem to suggest that the new statute is not "redundant" after all (since its effect is "new"). Could you clarify? What is it that you think is "really going on here"? I appreciate your input. Thanks, -Smac

I had a response to you post and somehow when I posted it, the post disappeared. I will try to recreate it.

The true cry of conservatives everywhere. Especially if they are designed to target minority communities our religions tell us to hate.

Your acting as if public screening R rated movies doesn't exist. I'm sure you can link me to your advocacy efforts to end this obscene grooming of children.

Your original post on this topic was based on Ron DeSantis's talking points rather than the actual legal issues of the real-world case. You began your analysis by saying, This misconstrues both the legal background of this case and what this particular law actually changes in Florida. It is parroting what Ron DeSantis said about it ("This shouldn’t even be controversial, yet our law protecting kids required us to fend off lawsuits and win a case before a divided appellate court." and quotes Eric Daugherty saying, "HUGE WIN! Children are PROTECTED in Florida...", as if without this law, children were unprotected). Existing laws in Florida include: Fla. Stat. § 847.013 — Exposing minors to harmful shows and exhibitions Fla. Stat. § 800.04(7) — Lewd or lascivious exhibition before a person under sixteen Fla. Stat. § 847.011(4) — Obscene live performances Fla. Stat. § 847.0133 — Showing obscene material to a minor Fla. Stat. § 800.03 — Exposure of sexual organs Fla. Stat. § 847.012 — Harmful material distributed to minors Fla. Stat. § 827.071 — Sexual performances by children and child pornography Fla. Stat. § 796.07 — Places operated for “lewdness” Fla. Stat. § 823.05 — Public nuisances involving lewdness or illegal conduct Fla. Stat. § 877.03 — Disorderly conduct and breach of the peace I think what is illegitimate and imaginary is Ron DeSantis's claim, which you parrotted, that this particular law shouldn't even be controversial, and the implication that his political oponents are against "limiting minors access to sxualized events." I don’t have an absolute rule. I can imagine sufficiently extreme sexual conduct where the state would be justified in overriding parental consent. But that doesn't answer the real questions surrounding the legal controversy around this law. Agreeing that some line may legitimately exist doesn't tell us where the line should be, whether Florida's existing laws already drew it adequately, or whether § 827.11 makes Florida a better place to live and raise a family. Just as I don't think Florida needs redundant laws, I don't think other states need them, either. As an example, Orlando has an old theatre called The Plaza Live, which is owned by a non-profit called The Orlando Philharmonic Foundation. In December of 2022--5 months before the children of Florida were "protected" by SB1438, they had a show called "A Drag Queen Christmas." According to the Miami Herald: The Orlando Philharmonic settled with state regulators and paid a $5,000 fine and agreed to no longer allow parents to take their children to such shows in the future. Let's summarize: 1- An old theatre had a show called A Drag Queen Christmas. 2- There was a sign at the entrance warning of potentially unsuitable content for those under the age of 18 3- A small squad of undercover state agents went there, secretly recording everything 4- According to the state agents, "nothing indecent had happened on stage" 5- Some parents chose to take a grand-total of three minors to see the show, where they were exposed to [gasp!] "a hip thrust or two", and "bare-chested men who wouldn't have been out of place at a Madonna concert." 6- State regulators went after the venue, who ended up settling for a $5,000 fine and a promise by the venue that it would take away parents rights to take their children to such shows in the future. And what is the reaction to all of this from Ron DeSantis and those who parrot him? We need more laws! Whatever one thinks of that performance, this is why I reject the suggestion that, before § 827.11, Florida was helpless to protect children from sexually inappropriate live entertainment. As this case proves, Florida had laws on the books, sent undercover law-enforcement officers to investigate the show, and initiated proceedings that threatened the venue’s licenses, and imposed hefty fines—all before § 827.11 existed. I would say the closest real-world parallel to Fla. Stat. § 827.11 — Exposing children to an adult live performance is Fla. Stat. § 847.013 — Exposing minors to harmful shows and exhibitions. I believe the importance of a topic like this should depend, at least in part, on how much actual harm it causes individuals and society. I seriously doubt that a young teenager suffers significant developmental harm from seeing “a hip thrust or two” or “bare-chested men who wouldn’t have been out of place at a Madonna concert.” And I have seen no evidence that parents taking children to performances like this constitutes a significant social problem. Given the low frequency and low severity of this, I'm quite happy to allow parents to make the judgment call on how to raise their own families. I think a much more important topic is how politicians have become so skilled at manipulating voters by taking unusual, marginal, and often made-up incidents, portraying them as widespread threats to children, and using the resulting fear to distract voters from the issues that are really important, mobilize voters, antagonize them against their neighbors who have different beliefs and cultures, and justify new exercises of state power that take away parents rights. The inability of so many voters to see what's really going on here is the really big issue that terrifies and depresses me.

See below. Yes. I would say "race" as in Native American Indians. Right. One's physical skin color changing. The LDS Church continues to teach in its seminary manuals that a dark skin color was the sign of the curse. 1) "Some people have mistakenly thought that the dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that the dark skin was not the curse: "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord" (Religion 121–122 - Book of Mormon Student Manual, 2018, chapter 8). 2) "Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of their skin was only a mark or sign of the curse. To clarify this point, have a student read the following statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith: "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. . . . "The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord" (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23) (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2012). 3] The color of one's skin will even be a factor on Judgment Day. Have a look at what the LDS Church teaches about Jacob 3:8-9. "O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers". The 2017 Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual says this: "Summarize Alma 3:5–17 by explaining that these verses describe the curse and the mark that had come upon the Lamanites. Remind students that the curse the Lamanites experienced was separation from God because of their rebellion and disobedience. The mark, which at that time distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites, was that "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" (Alma 3:6). You may also want to remind students that it is wrong to revile or look down upon someone because of the color of his or her skin (see Jacob 3:9)". The context is physical skin color. It should be noted that the current version (2024) removed this false teaching. There's more to it than that. See the FAIR article titled, "What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by "Skin of Blackness"? "2 Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, 4–2:897, appears to follow the suggestion that there was a physical change in skin color. Discussing the change of white to pure in 2 Nephi 6:30 for the 1840 edition, he notes: "Of course, the 1840 change of white to pure avoids . . . the need to interpret the remnant of the Nephites as being dark skinned. In other words, the editing change to pure may represent a conscious attempt at avoiding what was perceived as a difficult reading (the Nephites as being dark skinned), which therefore explains why the change from white to pure was made here—and only here—in 2 Nephi 30:6. There has never been any attempt to emend any of the passages that directly comment on the dark skin of the Lamanites." Skousen's argument for the reason for the editorial change is persuasive. It persuades, however, that the reader's understanding of the text related to a change in pigmentation. It does not discuss the point made in this commentary of the text's use of skin as a metaphor rather than as a literal description". Despite the esthetic reword in later Book of Mormon versions, Alma 3:6-8 remains to lend support to the real intent of 2 Nephi 30:6. But they were not taught as theories in the past. And the LDS Church still teaches it in seminary manuals. See above. Sure. The LDS Church is noble to try and disavow these false teachings. Leading people astray is not a good image. For obvious reasons. Fortunately his and teachings by others are still available. Those comments constitute false teaching. Spencer Kimball wasn't the only one. See chapters 15 and 16 of "The Way to Perfection". The teachings therein are not portrayed as opinion, theory, or speculation.

I didn't understand what you're saying. Please clarify.

I write in Notepad and then paste into the forum window. The fonts are not the same.

You forget one key part. "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also". Jesus is not in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms. See the answer for #12 (Frequently Asked Questions😞 "The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ's statement that "in my Father's house are many mansions".

"Be perfect" is in the context of the way he said verses earlier. It is not "become perfect" in the resurrection to become a God.

This is a common apologetic but it is a made up excuse with no data behind it. It makes sense intuitively but it doesn’t explain why dead animals are in places they would have lived on this Earth. Did God make the planet out of preexisting materials and carefully locate all the old fossils where they would be if the earth was older? Why? The flood reasoning is even more silly and creates more problems than it solves. Marcus R. Ross only graduated because he ignored his creationist beliefs in his phd thesis. He knows (or at least knew) how to do real science. He just chooses not to.

Sometimes it's not the years, it's the mileage.

"My first question for you is this: do you believe the inheritors of the telestial kingdom will need to obtain a remission of their sins through Christ prior to receiving their salvation in the telestial kingdom of glory?" That is a reasonable question, and my first gut reaction is no. I'll try not to be too long winded. "Remission of Sins See also Atone, Atonement; Forgive; Jesus Christ; Repent, Repentance Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance. Remission of sins is made possible by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. A person obtains a remission of his sins if he has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, receives the ordinances of baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeys God’s commandments." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/remission-of-sins?lang=eng According to this, receiving a remission of our sins requires faith, repentance, ordinances, and obedience. Those in the telestial world definitely do not receive a remission because they do not receive the gospel of Christ, or the testimony of Jesus (D&C 76:82). That is the short answer. The longer answer pertains to the terrestrial kingdom. D&C 76:52 and 3 Nephi 27:16-20 make it clear that only those who repent of all their sins, and endure to the end in obeying the commandments will have washed their garments clean in the blood of the Lamb. All others (terrestrial/telestial/Sons of Perdition) fall short of obtaining a remission of their sins, which logically explains why they go to spirit prison to suffer. Those who are not valiant in their testimony of Jesus have some unrepentant sin that prevents them from obtaining celestial glory, and keeps them from coming forth in the morning of the first resurrection. Because they are not celestial heirs, there is at least some sin for which they don't receive a remission, and they must wait until the afternoon of the first resurrection. They must suffer the penalty for their sins because they are not washed clean by the blood of the Lamb like those in the celestial kingdom. Those in the telestial kingdom remain completely unrepentant, destined for the second resurrection, again suffering the penalty of their sins rather than receiving a remission. However, in 3 Nephi 27:17, Jesus says that those who do not endure to the end, they go into the fire from whence they can no more return. 3 Nephi 27:16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. 17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. 18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. 19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. Because of the justice of God, if you do not repent of all our sins and endure to the end, when we stand before him when he judges the world, we will be cast down into the fire from whence we can no more return. In trying to reconcile these words in 3 Nephi 27 with D&C 76, I initially posited that entering into his kingdom and entering into his rest are synonymous with the celestial kingdom, and not the lower two degrees of glory, but the ultimate fate of being cast into the fire and not being able to return from that judgment seems to preclude that reconciliation. I am not sure how your reconcile the words of Jesus in 3 Nephi 27 with D&C 76, but I do not see how those who are not valiant in enduring to the end can be cast into the fire from whence they can no more return, and also inherit a lower level of heaven without meeting the plan of redemption's condition of repentance and being washed clean by the blood of the Lamb.

I happen to think the locket photo is more likely to be Hyrum Smith, and when I looked to see if anyone else had thought so too I found this analysis of it that I thought was really compelling: https://josephsmithjrphoto.blogspot.com/2023/07/hyrum-smiths-identity-through.html?m=1 I know many think the locket photo to be depicting a man too old to be Joseph Smith, as he died at 38 and many people think the locket picture to be of a man in his 40s.

My guess is this is what Meldrum (Iknew he was young earth and hoped he mentioned it somewhere) believes because he dismisses the age scientists give for fossils because fossilization over long periods of time has never been observed directly, in the lab or out of it. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1808&context=msr Also AI (this is an accurate summary according to the ideas I have seen from this very unfortunate model:

This is the one I heard growing up.

I take it you really like her.

I think it's great for members to feel free to wear a cross without judgement among the Latter-Day Saints. And for the sleeveless tops too. The youth or those that work out their biceps can show them off a little more. I of course, would prefer to cover my flabby arms. Thanks for asking.

I've met a few members that believe this. The most common answer is that the earth was formed from material that had been used in previous planets and so the bones from those planets ended up in earth. If you go outside of the church to those who are young-earthers, they have quite a lot of ways to explain it away. A common way is to say that the flood triggered the fossils by burying them and that the process to fossilize is actually much faster than what mainstream scientists say. There's even a paleontologist who is a young-earther - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_R._Ross.

Interesting. I hope the author of the blog post does more investigation. I think the locket picture has much better provenance since it is in the family but this one is interesting as well.

I understand the skepticism about legislative motives. Politicians of every stripe mix principle, politics, and constituency pressure, and it is fair to question whether a particular bill is primarily about child protection or about "signaling." That said, the comparison to R-rated movies watched with parents does not seem to work. An R-rated film is a recorded work that parents can preview, control, and contextualize in private. A live performance in a commercial or public venue is different in setting, immediacy, and the degree of parental control once the child is present. Existing law already treats live adult entertainment, obscenity, and age-restricted venues differently from private viewing of movies for related reasons. A person can criticize the Florida statute as poorly drafted, politically timed, or broader than necessary, but I think he could do that without treating every age-based limit on sexualized live performances as illegitimate religious lawfare. However, the reverse is also true: existing gaps or inconsistencies in how other forms of content are regulated do not automatically prove that any restriction in this area is pretextual. I would be interested in your responses to the questions I posed above: Do you believe there should be any age-based legal limits on the sexual content of live performances that minors can attend, or is your position that parental consent should be the sole and final authority in every case? If Florida’s prior obscenity and harmful-to-minors statutes already fully solved the problem, why do similar age restrictions exist in many other states and localities for adult entertainment venues, strip clubs, and certain performances? Are those also unnecessary? CB compared this law to forcing children to read the Bible. What is the closest real-world parallel you see: is restricting minors from a sexualized stage performance more like compelled religious exercise, or more like existing limits on minors’ access to pornography, alcohol, or adult businesses? Thank you for your participation. -Smac

I'm sorry, but I don't think that the Florida legislature is acting in good faith. Instead they are threatening lawfare to rein in acts that go against their religious principles. If they were really concerned about lewd conduct and "grooming" why have they done nothing to prevent children from watching rated R movies with their parents?

I don’t really know of too many people that are members of the church who believe that the garden story occurred 6000 years ago. I’m sure they’re out there. I’m just never run into One and got to have a conversation with them. I think mostly they just believe that the fossil record is a hoax somehow. I’ve enjoyed reading the words of Leaders in the church who accepted the fossil record as accurate, and also accepted Adam and Eve as a literal people. Those were the people that I was speaking about in my earlier post to you.

I can't tell whether you want to have a serious conversation about this. I do want to have a serious conversation. Could you explain what part(s) of my comments are causing confusion on this point? Existing laws against obscenity and harmful material to minors are relevant, and it’s fair to ask whether a new statute is necessary or carefully drawn. Legislatures sometimes pass overlapping or politically timed measures; that criticism is not unique to this issue. That said, equating a law that restricts minors’ access to performances meeting a statutory definition of sexual or lewd content with a proposal about litter boxes in schools is a category error. One involves regulating adult-oriented sexualized performances in the presence of children. The other addresses a largely anecdotal or satirical claim that never reflected widespread policy. Treating them as the same kind of “made-up problem” collapses distinct questions into a single partisan narrative. I am willing to examine whether this particular statute is vague, overbroad, or redundant with prior law. I am less persuaded by the claim that any effort to set age-based limits on sexualized live performances must be dismissed as pure identity politics. Consequently, please identify which preexisting Florida statutes which you think already cover the same ground as the above-referenced statute covers. The underlying interest—limiting children’s exposure to certain sexual content in public or commercial settings—is not new, and it is a legitimate governmental objective. Children really are being exposed to highly sexualized content. While reasonable disagreement exists about the means and the drafting of the statute, that is different from saying the entire subject is imaginary. That’s a fair description of the procedural history. The district court and a majority of the original panel found a substantial likelihood of success on the vagueness and overbreadth claims and issued a broad injunction. Five judges on the en banc court agreed with that view in dissent. The en banc majority of eight, however, disagreed. It held that the statute’s use of “lewd,” as construed under existing Florida law, and its age-variable standard did not render the Act facially unconstitutional, and it vacated the injunction. Close divisions among judges are common on difficult First Amendment questions; they do not themselves establish that the losing side’s position is the correct one. The controlling decision at this stage is the en banc majority’s. That is a legitimate policy question, and it is distinct from the constitutional one the en banc court decided. I don't think I have claimed that the statute was the only possible way to address the issue, or that Florida’s prior obscenity and harmful-to-minors laws were a complete nullity. Legislatures often add overlapping or more specific tools when they conclude existing provisions are hard to apply to live performances, slow to enforce, or uncertain in scope when the event is marketed as entertainment rather than explicit adult material. Whether this particular law was necessary is a judgment call about legislative priorities and drafting. Reasonable people can conclude it was redundant, poorly tailored, or politically motivated. My point has been narrower: the underlying interest in setting some age-based limits on sexualized live performances is not inherently illegitimate, and the en banc court found the statute survived the facial constitutional challenge that was brought. Necessity and constitutionality are related but not identical questions. I am open to arguments that better-drafted or more targeted tools would have been preferable. Those are reasonable criteria for evaluating any statute. I'm not sure the statute in question scores perfectly on all of them. Clearer definitions and tighter tailoring are almost always preferable. Age-variable standards can create practical uncertainty for venues. Parental autonomy deserves due weight and deference (due, but not unlimited). Any law that touches expressive conduct needs safeguards against selective or viewpoint-driven enforcement. The dissent emphasized these concerns, and they are worth taking seriously in application. My position is not that the statute is a model of legislative craftsmanship. Rather, I think the state has a legitimate interest in placing some outer limits on sexualized live performances involving minors. I also think that existing - and constitutionally valid - categories of regulation (obscenity, harmful-to-minors material, age restrictions on adult entertainment) already reflect that interest, and that the en banc court found the facial constitutional challenge unlikely to succeed. One can accept those points while still preferring narrower drafting, stronger definitional clarity, or greater deference to parental decision-making in close cases. So while criticizing the law's language or design is fair, but I think that treating the entire subject as illegitimate or imaginary is a different claim. A few questions for you: Do you believe there should be any age-based legal limits on the sexual content of live performances that minors can attend, or is your position that parental consent should be the sole and final authority in every case? If Florida’s prior obscenity and harmful-to-minors statutes already fully solved the problem, why do similar age restrictions exist in many other states and localities for adult entertainment venues, strip clubs, and certain performances? Are those also unnecessary? CB compared this law to forcing children to read the Bible. What is the closest real-world parallel you see: is restricting minors from a sexualized stage performance more like compelled religious exercise, or more like existing limits on minors’ access to pornography, alcohol, or adult businesses? This is an important and difficult topic. I appreciate your efforts to treat it seriously. Thanks, -Smac