Drag shows in Florida

Governor dimwitty is afraid of drag shows. Maybe he's afraid he'll find them appealing? I mean who knows…

(Personally I think they're a hoot and think everyone should give them a fair shake. Heck just watch robin Williams in the 90s era movie birdcage to get a sense of it)

In any case he wants to "ban them" and punish businesses that host them.

But as I've opined before, it's hard to draw a line. What if someone hosts a Monty Python tribute show? The Python guys were famous for always playing women (backstory: women comediennes were hard to come by and often got snatched up by other troupes). What if the cast is true to the spirit of the Python troupe and uses men as women…effectively dressed in drag? Would that violate the law?

And if you're thinking it's about the content of the show, what if risqué and raunchy content that is in standup comedy? Or straight acts (even Broadway performances) that feature "straight people" being explicit.

Where do you draw the line? What if you call it a "drag show" and it's something else, entirely different. Like a car drag race?

Stupid people…

https://www.axios.com/local/tampa-bay/2023/02/21/drag-show-bans-florida

Oh the irony

Governor dipshit wants to make people who "blog" about him register with the state. And otherwise be guilty of a felony.

I'm unclear on what this means. How does he define blog? What about a web page, an editorial, a series of tweets, a post to another social site ?

What is fair game, for an elected official, which the constitution allows for speech against, and who the Supreme Court has ruled can be called names and made fun of without repercussions?

Is it just his name? His full name? The office? The state? Is it about policies? Where he ate lunch and what he had? Where is this line he wants to draw? 

Is this just for Floridians? How do you define that? What if you’re out of state? Just for people? Or the host too? What if the “blog” is hosted in Timbuktu? Can one post to it then?

Ah free speech. It’s sometimes hard to define what it means. But I can assure you that his definition is outside the bounds and is unconstitutional. 

And to the irony of it all. He is all in on allowing any and every one to carry a gun without a permit. But he wants you to have a permit to exercise free speech.

The second amendment has restrictions in the constitution. The first does not. And yet he's once again playing dictator.

And people just accept it.