I know it doesn't. Feel free to show me a case or a legal brief that might convince a judge otherwise, but I don't think you can or will because you have no idea what you are talking about.
But all that proves is that our justice system is protecting tranny lunatics by conflating "a right to read to toddlers" with "free speech." You can keep going "there's no case law saying it ISN'T" until the end of days, but you know as well as I do that those are two separate issues, and "let these perverts read to your minor children" should never be protected under free speech.
Dude, what do you think reading to children is? Its fucking speech. If you tell drag queens they can't read to children, you are restricting their freedom of speech. Its that simple. Now, there are a couple of moves you could make. You could argue that an originalist interpretation of the 1A does not protect drag queen story hour. You could try to make a common-good constitutionalist argument, which is gaining a little bit of traction. You could find some cases that are somewhat on point and try to distinguish them. You could even argue that yes it would infringe on 1A rights but is nevertheless permissible under strict scrutiny. I think these are all losing arguments, but they are at least plausible arguments. What you can't do is simply say that it's not a 1A issue. You will get laughed out of court. It kind of matters what courts think even if you think their jurisprudence on the issue is garbage.
I think your negative reaction to my comment really shows the weakness and inconsistency of social conservatives trying to uphold classical liberal values. I can at least in theory say fuck drag queen story hour, and fuck the 1A. You want to say fuck drag queen story hour but want to uphold the 1A on the other end. Its a losing game.
No, I'm sorry, I don't believe that first couple of sentences, and sadly I don't think you do either. Couldn't be bothered reading beyond that. Access to children is not a free speech issue.
I know it doesn't. Feel free to show me a case or a legal brief that might convince a judge otherwise, but I don't think you can or will because you have no idea what you are talking about.
But all that proves is that our justice system is protecting tranny lunatics by conflating "a right to read to toddlers" with "free speech." You can keep going "there's no case law saying it ISN'T" until the end of days, but you know as well as I do that those are two separate issues, and "let these perverts read to your minor children" should never be protected under free speech.
Dude, what do you think reading to children is? Its fucking speech. If you tell drag queens they can't read to children, you are restricting their freedom of speech. Its that simple. Now, there are a couple of moves you could make. You could argue that an originalist interpretation of the 1A does not protect drag queen story hour. You could try to make a common-good constitutionalist argument, which is gaining a little bit of traction. You could find some cases that are somewhat on point and try to distinguish them. You could even argue that yes it would infringe on 1A rights but is nevertheless permissible under strict scrutiny. I think these are all losing arguments, but they are at least plausible arguments. What you can't do is simply say that it's not a 1A issue. You will get laughed out of court. It kind of matters what courts think even if you think their jurisprudence on the issue is garbage.
I think your negative reaction to my comment really shows the weakness and inconsistency of social conservatives trying to uphold classical liberal values. I can at least in theory say fuck drag queen story hour, and fuck the 1A. You want to say fuck drag queen story hour but want to uphold the 1A on the other end. Its a losing game.
No, I'm sorry, I don't believe that first couple of sentences, and sadly I don't think you do either. Couldn't be bothered reading beyond that. Access to children is not a free speech issue.
Thanks for wasting my time, moron.