• pooberbee (any)
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    How was protection of kids ever used to limit your freedom of speech?

    “Don’t Say Gay” laws

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      AFAIK it was never a law, but mostly a military thing.
      Also that has nothing to do with protecting children.

      • pooberbee (any)
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        It sounds like you’re describing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. I’m referring to the Florida law limiting the speech of teachers.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          OK USA is a crazy place, I remember hearing about that. And I absolutely agree that is wrong.
          But that’s not to protect children as I see it, that’s to protect religious bigotry.
          I can see the excuse is that they claim it’s to protect the children, but there is nothing to back that up, except religious prejudice.

          • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            You’re so close to actually understanding the comic with this comment…

            Those laws aren’t actually meant to protect children. They are meant to LOOK like they are going to protect children. That’s why “terrorism” and “kids” are the wrapping paper. The idea is that the media is helping the government to limit speech by making it seem like those limitations are to keep us safer.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              If the comic had “PRETEND it’s to protect children” and “PRETEND it’s for anti terrorism” Then it would be funny, and not free speech absolutism.
              But that’s not what it says.

              • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s just not how political cartoons work (in America as least). They are meant to make you stop and think for a moment. Sometimes they are funny too but humor isn’t a requirement.

                Think about it this way. When you receive the package from the cartoon, the outside of the package (the wrapping paper) is going make you think the thing inside is going to protect kids. However, once you tear away the paper all that has been revealed is something that limits your speech.

                “Parental Rights in Education Act” certainly sounds like something that would be meant protect kids. It’s the wrapping paper on legislation that limits speech and promotes bigotry.

                Oh, and just for the record, I don’t think that this is a particularly good political cartoon.

                • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Thank you, my mind may have been clouded by to much idiocy from the likes of Elon Musk and his “I’m a free speech absolutist”.
                  Also Donald Trump and his free speech defense regarding Jan. 6.
                  Generally it seems USA has a lot of free speech extremists that think everything should be allowed.
                  The way you describe it, I can see that’s not necessarily the case here.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yes so much crazy in USA it’s hard yo keep up. As I mention in another response, the limitation on teachers to even mention they are gay for instance, is an actual violation of free speech, and is not to protect the children, but is 100% religious prejudice and bigotry. Such a rule or law would be 100% completely illegal here in Denmark, as it is clearly discriminating against a minority, based on their sexual preference, and that is without possibility of debate illegal here.
          If the cartoon reflected things like that better, I’d 100% agree.

          • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Ah, your responses make more sense to me now that I know that you’re not American. Political cartoons can be tough sometimes when you’re not fully immersed in the politics they refer to. I doubt I’d have any frame of reference for a political cartoon from Denmark.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Absolutely USA is more extreme, but we also have problems of the same sort here.
              I think it’s because my way of thinking is what may be called concrete. If the cartoon had a “PRETEND” in front of anti terrorism and protect children, It would be spot on. But as it is, it seems to me to regard actual anti terrorism and child protection.
              But I can see now, that is probably how it is supposed to be understood.