Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What "other reasons" do you have in mind?

Again, parental rights are important and broad, but they are not unlimited.  The rights and interests of the child, and of society, may also play a role in justifying state intervention.

I don't think "take over parental control" is accurate.  Parental rights exist, but they have always had some constraints.

I have previously provided extensive examples of sexually explicit behavior at drag shows, Pride parades, etc. which I find to be problematic, particularly in relation to children.

Florida and other states have long allowed non-sexual social nudity in designated private settings such as AANR-affiliated resorts and certain clothing-optional venues. Those places operate under an explicit legal exception for nudity “in any place provided or set apart for that purpose,” and AANR clubs emphasize a family-friendly, non-sexual code of conduct. Simple nudity in that context is not treated as indecent exposure.

The Florida statute at issue is narrower. It does not ban all nudity around minors, nor does it ban every Pride parade or every drag performance. It prohibits knowingly admitting a child to an “adult live performance” that depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, specific sexual activities, lewd conduct, or lewd exposure of prosthetic/imitation genitals or breasts when the performance, taken as a whole:

1. Predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest;
2. Is patently offensive to prevailing adult community standards regarding what is suitable for the age of the child present; and
3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the age of the child present.

That is the longstanding “obscenity-as-to-minors” standard. It targets sexualized performances aimed at adult audiences, not ordinary social nudity or non-sexual public events.

A family nudist resort where people of all ages are, it is argued, simply unclothed in a non-sexual recreational setting is not the same thing as a commercial show that includes simulated sexual acts, exaggerated sexualized dancing, or other content designed to appeal to adult sexual interests. I have some personal reservations about these things, but we live in a pluralistic society.  In any event, the law already draws that kind of distinction in many areas (public indecency, age-restricted entertainment, material harmful to minors). Treating every instance of nudity as equivalent to every sexually explicit live performance collapses a distinction the law has maintained for a long time.  

I’m not “railing against” all LGBT events. The question is whether the state may set age limits on commercial live performances that meet the statutory criteria for being unsuitable for children. Florida’s statute attempts to do exactly that. Whether particular shows cross the line is a fact-specific question; the principle that some adult-oriented sexual performances can be restricted for minors is not novel.

You are pointing to a legitimate issue: a great deal of sexual content is available to minors through television, streaming, movies, and advertising, and parental oversight of that material is often inconsistent. That is a fair observation.  I'm less persuaded that it is a moral one.  That we have allowed children to be exposed to sexually explicit context is not, in my view, a justification to throw off any and all constraints intended to protect children.

It also does not answer the narrower question raised by the Florida statute. The law does not claim that live adult performances are the only source of sexualized material minors encounter, nor does it require that every other form of exposure be eliminated before any limit can be placed on commercial live shows. Most regulations work that way:

We restrict minors from buying alcohol even though they may see adults drinking on television.

We restrict minors from certain rated films in theaters even though similar content exists online.

We set age limits on casinos, tobacco, and adult businesses even though the underlying themes appear elsewhere in media.

And on and on.  The existence of other, sometimes more pervasive problems does not make a targeted restriction incoherent or hypocritical.

There are also differences in kind that matter. A live performance in front of an audience is an immediate, in-person experience, often commercial and specifically marketed. Streaming or cinematic content is mediated, usually subject to ratings systems, parental controls, and the practical reality that parents can (and frequently do) limit access in the home. Those distinctions are imperfect, but they are not imaginary. The statute targets knowingly admitting a child to a live show that meets the statutory criteria for being unsuitable for minors; it does not attempt to solve the entire landscape of media exposure.

If the broader concern is that sexual content reaches children too easily across many platforms, that is a legitimate subject for separate discussion about things like ratings enforcement, parental tools, platform responsibility, and so on. It does not follow, though, that therefore no age-based limits should exist on commercial live adult performances. Pointing to worse or more widespread examples elsewhere is a classic “not as bad as” move; it shifts the focus rather than addressing whether the specific restriction is justified on its own terms.

Again, parental authority over children is fundamental, but it has never been absolute. The state already draws lines around what adults may expose minors to commercially: material harmful to minors statutes, age-restricted theaters and clubs, restrictions on selling certain sexual content to children, and limits on public indecency. Those rules exist alongside parental rights; they do not wait for every other form of exposure (TV, streaming, billboards) to be eliminated first.

The Florida statute does not outlaw all sexual content or strip parents of guidance over their own living rooms. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets the statutory test for being unsuitable for minors—appealing to prurient interest, patently offensive for the child’s age, and lacking serious value for that age. That is a narrower rule than the “state controls every sex act a child might see” claim suggests.

Whether a particular depiction is pornographic does not depend on the medium alone. The law has long treated live, commercial, in-person performances differently from mediated content that parents can more readily control at home. Demanding that every other source of sexual imagery be banned before any limit can be placed on adult live shows is an all-or-nothing standard the law has never required.

The statute we’ve been discussing does not single out LGBT events. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial adult live performance that meets a specific three-part test: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive for the child’s age, and lacks serious value for that age. That standard applies regardless of the sexual orientation or identity of the performers. A heterosexual burlesque show meeting the same criteria would fall under it just as readily.

Do you agree or disagree with the foregoing paragraph?  If not, I would like to hear about your disagreement.

I’m not arguing that parents should have no role, or that every form of sexual content in media should be treated identically. I’m arguing that the state may set age limits on certain commercial live performances without first solving every other avenue through which sexual imagery reaches children. Pointing to television, streaming, or advertising does not make a targeted restriction on live adult shows incoherent.

As for you speculating about motives: I have no animus toward LGBT people. Disagreement about where to draw age and content lines for minors applies to both the "gay" and "straight" segments of society (to the extent we want to divvy ourselves up that way), and is not the same as hostility toward a community.

It seems an ongoing challenge for some folks to cope with disagreement about their worldview.  I think some Latter-day Saints construe any and all critiques of their faith as "attacks," as "anti-Mormonism" (candidly, I have done this in some instances).  Similarly, some in the LGBT community seem to construe too many things to be hatred or "hostility" (your word) rather than what they really are: instances of disagreement in a pluralistic society.

Reasoned and principled and civilly-expressed disagreement is not hate or hostility.  It's just disagreement.  So when, as here, the response shifts from the content of the rule to speculation about my personal reasons for discussing it, the underlying policy question tends to get lost. I’m willing to keep discussing the merits of the restriction itself—what the statute actually covers, whether the line is drawn in the right place, and how it compares to other age-based limits we already accept.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspective.  We seldom agree, but sometimes we do.  And in any event, I find value in listing to perspectives which vary from my own.

Thanks,

-Smac

What is it specifically that you have seen happen at a drag show or a pride parade that makes you feel like the government should regulate it any more than it regulates explicit sexual acts, nudity and much more blatant immoral beavior in movies and on TV that is broadcast into homes of minors and are difficult for parents to control.  After all, parents can choose to attend a drag show or pride parade with their children, but have a much more difficult time controlling what their children see in movies and on TV.  

Is the only difference is that drag shows and pride parades parents can make the choice and easily control what their children view as opposed to the graphic sex scenes and full frontal nudity that regularly occur in the movies and TV is that one is live and one is filmed????  Would you be ok with drag shows and pride parades being broadcast?  Do you think that drag shows and pride parades are more explicit than nudity and sex shown on TV and movies?  Could a drag show simulate sex acts as long as it was broadcasted?

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

What is it specifically that you have seen happen at a drag show or a pride parade that makes you feel like the government should regulate it any more than it regulates explicit sexual acts, nudity and much more blatant immoral beavior in movies and on TV that is broadcast into homes of minors and are difficult for parents to control.  After all, parents can choose to attend a drag show or pride parade with their children, but have a much more difficult time controlling what their children see in movies and on TV.  

The presence of sexual content on television, streaming, and in movies is a real issue, and parental control over it is often imperfect. That does not resolve the narrower question raised by the Florida statute.

The law does not attempt to regulate every form of sexual imagery minors might encounter. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets a specific three-part test: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive to prevailing standards regarding what is suitable for the child’s age, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. That is the longstanding obscenity-as-to-minors standard.

I keep saying this because it seems to not be getting much attention: Live, in-person commercial performances differ from mediated content in important ways. Parents can more readily limit or supervise what comes into the home through ratings, parental controls, and device settings. A commercial venue that knowingly admits children to a qualifying adult live performance is a different setting—one the law has long treated as subject to age-based restrictions.

It may be that, historically, existing rules were largely effective at keeping children out of traditional adult venues such as strip clubs. In recent years, however, some venues have sought to present sexually explicit live performances in settings that are specifically intended to include children. The newer statute responds to that development by applying a clear, neutral standard to all qualifying adult live performances, regardless of the identity or orientation of the performers. It is not limited to any one type of event.

Pointing to the broader problem of media exposure does not make a targeted limit on certain live performances incoherent. We already accept many age-based rules without first requiring that every other avenue of similar content be eliminated. The question is whether this particular restriction is justified on its own terms.

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is the only difference is that drag shows and pride parades parents can make the choice and easily control what their children view as opposed to the graphic sex scenes and full frontal nudity that regularly occur in the movies and TV is that one is live and one is filmed????  Would you be ok with drag shows and pride parades being broadcast?  Do you think that drag shows and pride parades are more explicit than nudity and sex shown on TV and movies?  Could a drag show simulate sex acts as long as it was broadcasted?

The distinction is not simply “live versus filmed.” The statute targets a specific conduct: knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets the obscenity-as-to-minors test. That is different from the separate (and imperfect) systems that already exist for broadcast, streaming, and theatrical films—ratings, parental controls, time-slot restrictions, and the practical ability of parents to limit what enters the home.

Whether a particular drag show or Pride-related performance is more or less explicit than a given movie or television scene is a factual question that varies case by case, and in the end is immaterial. The statute does not depend on a blanket ranking of entire categories. It asks whether the specific live performance, taken as a whole, meets the three-part standard for material that is unsuitable for the child’s age. Some will; many will not.

Broadcasting raises different issues under different legal frameworks. The statute at issue does not regulate broadcasting, and hypothetical questions about what would be permitted if the same content were only televised do not determine whether a state may set age limits on admitting children to qualifying live commercial performances. Those are separate regulatory domains, just as age limits on entering an adult club are separate from rules governing what may air on television.

In short, the law draws a line around a particular commercial setting and a particular act (knowingly admitting a child). It does not require proving that every other form of sexual content is more restrained, nor does it turn on whether the same material would be treated identically if it appeared only on a screen.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

There are also hundreds of naked bike rides that occur around the country

Ouch!?!

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

There are also hundreds of naked bike rides that occur around the country

Ouch!?!

Eww!?! 

 

-Smac

[california boy]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

The presence of sexual content on television, streaming, and in movies is a real issue, and parental control over it is often imperfect. That does not resolve the narrower question raised by the Florida statute.

The law does not attempt to regulate every form of sexual imagery minors might encounter. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets a specific three-part test: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive to prevailing standards regarding what is suitable for the child’s age, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. That is the longstanding obscenity-as-to-minors standard.

I keep saying this because it seems to not be getting much attention: Live, in-person commercial performances differ from mediated content in important ways. Parents can more readily limit or supervise what comes into the home through ratings, parental controls, and device settings. A commercial venue that knowingly admits children to a qualifying adult live performance is a different setting—one the law has long treated as subject to age-based restrictions.

It may be that, historically, existing rules were largely effective at keeping children out of traditional adult venues such as strip clubs. In recent years, however, some venues have sought to present sexually explicit live performances in settings that are specifically intended to include children. The newer statute responds to that development by applying a clear, neutral standard to all qualifying adult live performances, regardless of the identity or orientation of the performers. It is not limited to any one type of event.

Pointing to the broader problem of media exposure does not make a targeted limit on certain live performances incoherent. We already accept many age-based rules without first requiring that every other avenue of similar content be eliminated. The question is whether this particular restriction is justified on its own terms.

The distinction is not simply “live versus filmed.” The statute targets a specific conduct: knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets the obscenity-as-to-minors test. That is different from the separate (and imperfect) systems that already exist for broadcast, streaming, and theatrical films—ratings, parental controls, time-slot restrictions, and the practical ability of parents to limit what enters the home.

Whether a particular drag show or Pride-related performance is more or less explicit than a given movie or television scene is a factual question that varies case by case, and in the end is immaterial. The statute does not depend on a blanket ranking of entire categories. It asks whether the specific live performance, taken as a whole, meets the three-part standard for material that is unsuitable for the child’s age. Some will; many will not.

Broadcasting raises different issues under different legal frameworks. The statute at issue does not regulate broadcasting, and hypothetical questions about what would be permitted if the same content were only televised do not determine whether a state may set age limits on admitting children to qualifying live commercial performances. Those are separate regulatory domains, just as age limits on entering an adult club are separate from rules governing what may air on television.

In short, the law draws a line around a particular commercial setting and a particular act (knowingly admitting a child). It does not require proving that every other form of sexual content is more restrained, nor does it turn on whether the same material would be treated identically if it appeared only on a screen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you be ok with live performances requiring parents to be present if a minor is viewing the performance?  Or do you think the state is in a better position to know and understand the children of their own parents.