Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigan-house-passes-bill-using-wrong-pronouns-felony-fineable-10000

Michigan House passes bill that could make using wrong pronouns a felony, fineable up to $10,000

Under the new bill, 'intimidating' an individual in regards to their gender identity can result in prison time or a $10,000 fine

A recently passed bill in Michigan could make it a felony to intimidate someone by intentionally using the wrong gender pronouns, according to some legal experts.

Michigan's state House of Representatives has passed bill HB 4474, a piece of legislation that criminalizes causing someone to feel threatened by words. 

Under the new bill, offenders are "guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000." 

This NAZI edict is not law yet. The fact that a bunch of goose stepping NAZIS actually voted FOR it shows that Hitler LIVES.

 

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Fake news 

 

Hate crimes bill approved by Michigan House wouldn’t criminalize incorrect pronoun use

LANSING, Mich. – New legislation that would expand Michigan’s hate crime law to include protections for the LGBTQ+ community would not make it a felony to address a person by the wrong pronouns.

The word “pronoun” does not even appear in the bill, which was recently passed by the Michigan House. Critics claim that since House Bill 4474 lists “intimidation” under the list of prohibited acts, someone could potentially be charged with a felony for using the wrong gender pronouns. It is not likely at all, and not that cut and dry, experts say -- but, still, those claims have spread across the internet.

A preferred pronoun is how someone likes to be referred to when not using their exact name. Examples of pronouns include he/him/his, she/her/hers, and non-gendered or nonbinary pronouns that are not gender specific, like they/them.

House Bill 4474 seeks to expand what constitutes as a hate crime in Michigan as it relates to real or perceived identifying characteristics including race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and more. The bill also outlines the punishments for such crimes.

Nowhere in the bill does it explicitly criminalize the use of incorrect pronouns.

“Using a person’s preferred pronoun is akin to using their preferred first name. For example, if you meet a person and they say, ‘Call me Sam,’ rather than Samuel or Samantha, we would do so out of both respect for another’s self-identity and common courtesy. The same courtesy and respect should apply to a person’s requested pronouns,” said Michael McDaniel, associate dean emeritus professor, and director of homeland security law programs at Western Michigan University’s Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

To be found guilty of a hate crime under this bill, the perpetrator would have to intimidate someone in a way that is “malicious” and “intentional.” To be considered intimidation, the act would have to involve “repeated or continued harassment” of another person in a way that is not already protected under the Constitution, and “would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.”

In most circumstances, the incorrect use of a person’s pronouns would likely not be considered illegal.

What does House Bill 4474 do?

House Bill 4474 is among a package of bills that would expand Michigan’s current hate crime law to protect people based on their “sexual orientation,” “gender identity or expression,” “physical or mental disability,” and “age.”

A person would be guilty of a hate crime if they “maliciously and intentionally” do any of the following things “based on actual or perceived characteristics of that individual, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factors:”

  • Uses force of violence on another individual.

  • Causes bodily injury to another individual.

  • Intimidates another individual.

  • Damages, destroys or defaces any real, personal, digital, or online property of another individual without the consent of that individual.

  • Threatens, by word or act, to do any of those actions.

The bill defines “gender identity or expression” as “having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth.”

According to the Department of Justice, “the term ‘hate’ can be misleading. When used in a hate crime law, the word ‘hate’ does not mean rage, anger, or general dislike. In this context ‘hate’ means bias against people or groups with specific characteristics that are defined by the law.”

Why wouldn’t this bill make it a felony to use the wrong pronouns?

“While disrespectful or rude, a failure to use a person’s requested pronoun would not run afoul of the proposed amendment to our Hate Crimes Law for many reasons,” McDaniel said.

That is because the hate crime law does not refer to speech, but is instead focused on conduct. “The conduct to be prohibited by the law is intimidation,” according to McDaniel.

The bill defines intimidation as: “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened. Intimidate does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.”

McDaniel says there are some instances in which speech could constitute as intimidation under Michigan’s hate crimes law, but only when that speech is not directly protected by the First Amendment.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held in some instances that prohibited conduct can include expressive conduct, contingent upon the speaker’s intent,” McDaniel said. “I find the Michigan Hate Crimes Law definition of intimidation to be an admirable attempt to state an oft-misunderstood area of law. In two sentences, it requires (1) a willful intent to intimidate, (2) both an objective standard, a consideration of whether such conduct would reasonably seem to terrorize, frighten or threaten another, coupled with a subjective belief that the victim feels terrorized, and (3) a recognition that such law can only be enforced to the extent it does not violate the First Amendment or other provisions of the Constitution.

“Intimidation is analogous to ‘true threats,’ which the U.S. Supreme Court has long-referred to as ‘unprotected speech,’ McDaniel said. “On [June 27, 2023], the U.S Supreme Court reaffirmed in Counterman v Colorado, that true threats can be prohibited by criminal penalties, and, for the first time, accepted a level of mental capacity of reckless behavior for uttering true threats. The Court holds that ‘recklessness is morally culpable conduct, involving a ‘deliberate decision to endanger another.’”

McDaniel said Michigan’s House Bill 4474 would require a “much higher state of culpability, a willful intent to intimidate, than the Supreme Court would now require.”

What would the punishment be for committing a hate crime?

The bill is among a package of four bills that were introduced in the Michigan House on April 26.

House Bill 4474 and House Bill 4475, would expand the definition of hate crimes to include protections from violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability. The other two bills, 4476and 4477, would create an Institutional Desecretion Act for acts of destruction and vandalism or threats against places of worship, cemeteries, and educational facilities.

All four bills passed the Michigan House on June 20. They were all referred to the Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety.

If found guilty, a hate crime is a felony punishable by not more than two years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

There are several factors that could raise the punishment to not more than five years in prison, and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Those factors include (as written by lawmakers):

  • The violation results in bodily injury.

  • The person has one or more prior convictions or violating this law.

  • A victim of the violation of subsection one is less than 18 years of age and the offender is at least 19 years of age.

  • The person commits the violation of subsection one in concert with one or more other individuals.

  • The person is in possession of a firearm during the commission of the violation of subsection one.

If the defendant consents, the court may impose an alternative sentence. The court will consider the criminal history of the offender, the impact of the crime, and the availability of an alternative sentence before making a decision.

An alternative sentence may include requiring the offender to complete community service to help them understand the impact of the offense on the victim and the community.

Read House Bill 4474 in full here
 

 

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2023/07/10/hate-crimes-bill-approved-by-michigan-house-wouldnt-criminalize-incorrect-pronoun-use/

Livengood: Michigan lawmakers aren't trying to criminalize pronoun use

Misinformation spread rapidly on social media last week claiming that legislation expanding Michigan's hate crime law to include protections for gay and transgender individuals would make it a felony for using a person’s wrong pronoun.

However, House Bill 4474 doesn’t even contain the word “pronouns," much less set out any sort of legal framework to criminalize misidentifying of gender or disagreeing with an individual's preference to be referred to as he, she or they.

Some conservative critics have taken a couple of words in the bill's text that says any action that “threatens by word or act” and interpreted it to mean that addressing someone as a “he” when the individual identifies as “she” would be a threat punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Washtenaw County’s prosecutor, the Democratic sponsor of the bill and two Republican lawmakers who voted for it said critics are leaping to a legal conclusion that is nonsensical and not rooted in fact.

“It doesn’t criminalize words said in the pulpit,” said state Rep. Graham Filler, an attorney and Republican from Clinton County who voted for the bill.

In other words, preachers will still have the First Amendment right to criticize homosexuality and gender identity without fear of prosecution.

Claims that the legislation would criminalize saying the wrong pronoun originated on conservative media websites that included the Daily Wire, the Washington Free Beacon, Fox News and Breitbart, as well as the British tabloid The Daily Mail. The reports started getting published a week after the Democratic-controlled House passed the bill 59-50,with support from Filler and Republican Reps. Mark Tisdel of Rochester Hills and Tom Kuhn of Troy.

"It is bizarro world," Filler said.

 

Michigan's hate crime law dating to 1988 already makes it illegal to intimidate someone based on an actual or perceived characteristic, such as race or color, religion, sex or national origin. The bill would add protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, age and physical or mental disability.

Under the legislation, intimidation is defined as a "willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened."

“We’re talking about intimidating, threatening violence,” Filler said. “This is not the sardonic teller at the bank.”

The bill's definition of intimidation goes on to specify that it "does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose."

In other words, there would still be a First Amendment right to use the wrong pronoun for a transgender individual, said Eli Savit, Washtenaw County's Democratic prosecutor.

"If somebody says, 'I do not believe you are a man, I believe you are a woman' and misgenders someone, even intentionally, that is not a crime," Savit said. "That is First Amendment protected speech. ... I don't believe it's a kind thing to say. But it's not a crime."

It only becomes a hate crime when a "reasonable" person feels repeatedly frightened and threatened by an individual's words or acts.

"People can say whatever they want, that 'I feel frightened because somebody misgendered me,'" Savit said. "But that's not going to cut it for purposes of this bill."

 

The harassment would have to be repeated and continuing for it to be deemed a hate crime. The definition of intimidation in the bill "is almost the exact language that's already in place in Michigan's stalking law," Savit said.

"The notion that somebody can just be misgendered one time, misgendered accidently, or even intentionally, and that's going to lead to criminal charges is simply wrong," Savit said. "It's not supported by the text of the bill."

The criminality line for a hate crime, Savit said, would be crossed if someone tells a transgender woman "I don't believe you're a woman, I know where you live and my gun is lock and loaded."

"That absolutely could be a hate crime," Savit said. "That's legitimate intimidation. But just simply saying I'm not calling you by the pronoun that you identify as, that in no way can be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment."

But like most things in today's culture wars over LGBTQ rights, there's a lot of what-ifs tossed around on the political right.

What if there's a rogue prosecutor?

Filler and Tisdel, two of the Republicans who voted for the bill, don't buy that theory. Prosecutors who pursue legal theories to test the outer limits of a law often strike out in the courts, Filler said.

"Judges are human beings. ... If you bring crap into the courthouse, they're going to throw you out on your ear," Tisdel said. "They've got other stuff to do."

Tisdel, who hails from a district in Oakland County that's an electoral battleground for control of the state House, decided this bill wasn't worth "picking fights" with the Democrats and he voted yes.

 “It doesn’t particularly bother me,” he said.

Rep. Noah Arbit, the bill sponsor who is Jewish and openly gay, said the impetus of the legislation is to modernize a hate crime law that is "stuck in 1988" and didn't account for protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity a generation ago.

 

Arbit said Monday he was a bit surprised by the misinformation that spread across the internet last week about the legislation.

"The idea that someone is going to be prosecuted for misgendering someone is just wholly preposterous, ludicrous and just part and parcel of this demagoguery," said Arbit, D-West Bloomfield.

"And that's what it is," he added. "They are demagoguing this bill to the point where it is unrecognizable. And it's incredibly unfortunate."


https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/michigan/2023/07/04/michigan-legislature-not-criminalize-pronoun-use-lgbtq-transgender-misgendering-fox-news-daily-mail/70379518007/

  • Like 2
Posted
45 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

In most circumstances, the incorrect use of a person’s pronouns would likely not be considered illegal.

Shouldn't it be in all?

Otherwise, wouldn't it mean it stands a chance of occurring?

The use in itself isn't the pandora box. It's the likelihood that someone's identity not being respected could avail them more laws to punish a business, person or anyone under.

Sorry, but my name is not part of my identity. Its legally mine. Its on all of my legal documents as a result. 

Someone feeling like a woman, then switching back to a man the next morning, isn't the same circumstance.

This is just fear mongering, and gaslighting that what seems severe really isn't. 

Sounds familiar..

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Shouldn't it be in all?

Otherwise, wouldn't it mean it stands a chance of occurring?

What they mean is it is already the case if you decide to harass someone by referring to them by a name or a term after they’ve told you stop it can be considered harassment. For example there’s no law that says it’s illegal to call someone “little Timmy” but if you insist on calling a coworker that after he has told you repeatedly to stop and it’s determined you deliberately did so in order to belittle embarrass and humiliate him or to make him quit it can be considered harassment 

Edited by BeaverFever
  • Like 3
Posted
38 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

can be considered harassment. 

So, laws to protect from hurt feelings.

Otherwise, I don't understand how this differs from harassment laws, or why it needed to be added.

Posted
3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

So, laws to protect from hurt feelings.

Otherwise, I don't understand how this differs from harassment laws, or why it needed to be added.

No. The law extends existing hate crime protections to LGBTQ people.    As the article makes clear, hate crimes are defined by conduct, not by speech. 

  • Like 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

hate crimes are defined by conduct

So continuing to deny your gender, over time, causing serious mental anguish wouldn't qualify?

Mocking someone for being a man, when they identify as female committing suicide, wouldn't qualify?

Its only a matter of time, where someone will find a loophole.

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

So continuing to deny your gender, over time, causing serious mental anguish wouldn't qualify?

Mocking someone for being a man, when they identify as female committing suicide, wouldn't qualify?

Its only a matter of time, where someone will find a loophole.

Huh?  If it’s determined that you wage a campaign of harassment against someone base on your pattern of conduct and motives, it will qualify. Its not about someone uttering forbidden words. That’s how it’s always worked 

Edited by BeaverFever
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s how it’s always worked 

Am confused as to why the law was needed then.

Posted
6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Huh?  If it’s determined that you wage a campaign of harassment against someone base on your pattern of conduct and motives, it will qualify. Its not about someone uttering forbidden words. That’s how it’s always worked 

You have explained harassment very clearly.  The same snowflakes who are offended by rainbow flag displays want the right to harass someone to death.

Online trolling doesn't really work as well in the real world.

Posted
15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Fake news 

 

Hate crimes bill approved by Michigan House wouldn’t criminalize incorrect pronoun use

LANSING, Mich. – New legislation that would expand Michigan’s hate crime law to include protections for the LGBTQ+ community would not make it a felony to address a person by the wrong pronouns.

The word “pronoun” does not even appear in the bill, which was recently passed by the Michigan House. Critics claim that since House Bill 4474 lists “intimidation” under the list of prohibited acts, someone could potentially be charged with a felony for using the wrong gender pronouns. It is not likely at all, and not that cut and dry, experts say -- but, still, those claims have spread across the internet.

A preferred pronoun is how someone likes to be referred to when not using their exact name. Examples of pronouns include he/him/his, she/her/hers, and non-gendered or nonbinary pronouns that are not gender specific, like they/them.

House Bill 4474 seeks to expand what constitutes as a hate crime in Michigan as it relates to real or perceived identifying characteristics including race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and more. The bill also outlines the punishments for such crimes.

Nowhere in the bill does it explicitly criminalize the use of incorrect pronouns.

“Using a person’s preferred pronoun is akin to using their preferred first name. For example, if you meet a person and they say, ‘Call me Sam,’ rather than Samuel or Samantha, we would do so out of both respect for another’s self-identity and common courtesy. The same courtesy and respect should apply to a person’s requested pronouns,” said Michael McDaniel, associate dean emeritus professor, and director of homeland security law programs at Western Michigan University’s Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

To be found guilty of a hate crime under this bill, the perpetrator would have to intimidate someone in a way that is “malicious” and “intentional.” To be considered intimidation, the act would have to involve “repeated or continued harassment” of another person in a way that is not already protected under the Constitution, and “would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.”

In most circumstances, the incorrect use of a person’s pronouns would likely not be considered illegal.

What does House Bill 4474 do?

House Bill 4474 is among a package of bills that would expand Michigan’s current hate crime law to protect people based on their “sexual orientation,” “gender identity or expression,” “physical or mental disability,” and “age.”

A person would be guilty of a hate crime if they “maliciously and intentionally” do any of the following things “based on actual or perceived characteristics of that individual, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factors:”

  • Uses force of violence on another individual.

  • Causes bodily injury to another individual.

  • Intimidates another individual.

  • Damages, destroys or defaces any real, personal, digital, or online property of another individual without the consent of that individual.

  • Threatens, by word or act, to do any of those actions.

The bill defines “gender identity or expression” as “having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth.”

According to the Department of Justice, “the term ‘hate’ can be misleading. When used in a hate crime law, the word ‘hate’ does not mean rage, anger, or general dislike. In this context ‘hate’ means bias against people or groups with specific characteristics that are defined by the law.”

Why wouldn’t this bill make it a felony to use the wrong pronouns?

“While disrespectful or rude, a failure to use a person’s requested pronoun would not run afoul of the proposed amendment to our Hate Crimes Law for many reasons,” McDaniel said.

That is because the hate crime law does not refer to speech, but is instead focused on conduct. “The conduct to be prohibited by the law is intimidation,” according to McDaniel.

The bill defines intimidation as: “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened. Intimidate does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.”

McDaniel says there are some instances in which speech could constitute as intimidation under Michigan’s hate crimes law, but only when that speech is not directly protected by the First Amendment.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held in some instances that prohibited conduct can include expressive conduct, contingent upon the speaker’s intent,” McDaniel said. “I find the Michigan Hate Crimes Law definition of intimidation to be an admirable attempt to state an oft-misunderstood area of law. In two sentences, it requires (1) a willful intent to intimidate, (2) both an objective standard, a consideration of whether such conduct would reasonably seem to terrorize, frighten or threaten another, coupled with a subjective belief that the victim feels terrorized, and (3) a recognition that such law can only be enforced to the extent it does not violate the First Amendment or other provisions of the Constitution.

“Intimidation is analogous to ‘true threats,’ which the U.S. Supreme Court has long-referred to as ‘unprotected speech,’ McDaniel said. “On [June 27, 2023], the U.S Supreme Court reaffirmed in Counterman v Colorado, that true threats can be prohibited by criminal penalties, and, for the first time, accepted a level of mental capacity of reckless behavior for uttering true threats. The Court holds that ‘recklessness is morally culpable conduct, involving a ‘deliberate decision to endanger another.’”

McDaniel said Michigan’s House Bill 4474 would require a “much higher state of culpability, a willful intent to intimidate, than the Supreme Court would now require.”

What would the punishment be for committing a hate crime?

The bill is among a package of four bills that were introduced in the Michigan House on April 26.

House Bill 4474 and House Bill 4475, would expand the definition of hate crimes to include protections from violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability. The other two bills, 4476and 4477, would create an Institutional Desecretion Act for acts of destruction and vandalism or threats against places of worship, cemeteries, and educational facilities.

All four bills passed the Michigan House on June 20. They were all referred to the Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety.

If found guilty, a hate crime is a felony punishable by not more than two years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

There are several factors that could raise the punishment to not more than five years in prison, and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Those factors include (as written by lawmakers):

  • The violation results in bodily injury.

  • The person has one or more prior convictions or violating this law.

  • A victim of the violation of subsection one is less than 18 years of age and the offender is at least 19 years of age.

  • The person commits the violation of subsection one in concert with one or more other individuals.

  • The person is in possession of a firearm during the commission of the violation of subsection one.

If the defendant consents, the court may impose an alternative sentence. The court will consider the criminal history of the offender, the impact of the crime, and the availability of an alternative sentence before making a decision.

An alternative sentence may include requiring the offender to complete community service to help them understand the impact of the offense on the victim and the community.

Read House Bill 4474 in full here
 

 

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2023/07/10/hate-crimes-bill-approved-by-michigan-house-wouldnt-criminalize-incorrect-pronoun-use/

Livengood: Michigan lawmakers aren't trying to criminalize pronoun use

Misinformation spread rapidly on social media last week claiming that legislation expanding Michigan's hate crime law to include protections for gay and transgender individuals would make it a felony for using a person’s wrong pronoun.

However, House Bill 4474 doesn’t even contain the word “pronouns," much less set out any sort of legal framework to criminalize misidentifying of gender or disagreeing with an individual's preference to be referred to as he, she or they.

Some conservative critics have taken a couple of words in the bill's text that says any action that “threatens by word or act” and interpreted it to mean that addressing someone as a “he” when the individual identifies as “she” would be a threat punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Washtenaw County’s prosecutor, the Democratic sponsor of the bill and two Republican lawmakers who voted for it said critics are leaping to a legal conclusion that is nonsensical and not rooted in fact.

“It doesn’t criminalize words said in the pulpit,” said state Rep. Graham Filler, an attorney and Republican from Clinton County who voted for the bill.

In other words, preachers will still have the First Amendment right to criticize homosexuality and gender identity without fear of prosecution.

Claims that the legislation would criminalize saying the wrong pronoun originated on conservative media websites that included the Daily Wire, the Washington Free Beacon, Fox News and Breitbart, as well as the British tabloid The Daily Mail. The reports started getting published a week after the Democratic-controlled House passed the bill 59-50,with support from Filler and Republican Reps. Mark Tisdel of Rochester Hills and Tom Kuhn of Troy.

"It is bizarro world," Filler said.

 

Michigan's hate crime law dating to 1988 already makes it illegal to intimidate someone based on an actual or perceived characteristic, such as race or color, religion, sex or national origin. The bill would add protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, age and physical or mental disability.

Under the legislation, intimidation is defined as a "willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened."

“We’re talking about intimidating, threatening violence,” Filler said. “This is not the sardonic teller at the bank.”

The bill's definition of intimidation goes on to specify that it "does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose."

In other words, there would still be a First Amendment right to use the wrong pronoun for a transgender individual, said Eli Savit, Washtenaw County's Democratic prosecutor.

"If somebody says, 'I do not believe you are a man, I believe you are a woman' and misgenders someone, even intentionally, that is not a crime," Savit said. "That is First Amendment protected speech. ... I don't believe it's a kind thing to say. But it's not a crime."

It only becomes a hate crime when a "reasonable" person feels repeatedly frightened and threatened by an individual's words or acts.

"People can say whatever they want, that 'I feel frightened because somebody misgendered me,'" Savit said. "But that's not going to cut it for purposes of this bill."

 

The harassment would have to be repeated and continuing for it to be deemed a hate crime. The definition of intimidation in the bill "is almost the exact language that's already in place in Michigan's stalking law," Savit said.

"The notion that somebody can just be misgendered one time, misgendered accidently, or even intentionally, and that's going to lead to criminal charges is simply wrong," Savit said. "It's not supported by the text of the bill."

The criminality line for a hate crime, Savit said, would be crossed if someone tells a transgender woman "I don't believe you're a woman, I know where you live and my gun is lock and loaded."

"That absolutely could be a hate crime," Savit said. "That's legitimate intimidation. But just simply saying I'm not calling you by the pronoun that you identify as, that in no way can be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment."

But like most things in today's culture wars over LGBTQ rights, there's a lot of what-ifs tossed around on the political right.

What if there's a rogue prosecutor?

Filler and Tisdel, two of the Republicans who voted for the bill, don't buy that theory. Prosecutors who pursue legal theories to test the outer limits of a law often strike out in the courts, Filler said.

"Judges are human beings. ... If you bring crap into the courthouse, they're going to throw you out on your ear," Tisdel said. "They've got other stuff to do."

Tisdel, who hails from a district in Oakland County that's an electoral battleground for control of the state House, decided this bill wasn't worth "picking fights" with the Democrats and he voted yes.

 “It doesn’t particularly bother me,” he said.

Rep. Noah Arbit, the bill sponsor who is Jewish and openly gay, said the impetus of the legislation is to modernize a hate crime law that is "stuck in 1988" and didn't account for protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity a generation ago.

 

Arbit said Monday he was a bit surprised by the misinformation that spread across the internet last week about the legislation.

"The idea that someone is going to be prosecuted for misgendering someone is just wholly preposterous, ludicrous and just part and parcel of this demagoguery," said Arbit, D-West Bloomfield.

"And that's what it is," he added. "They are demagoguing this bill to the point where it is unrecognizable. And it's incredibly unfortunate."


https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/michigan/2023/07/04/michigan-legislature-not-criminalize-pronoun-use-lgbtq-transgender-misgendering-fox-news-daily-mail/70379518007/

I cited a reliable source.

Detroit News is not a reliable source.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You have explained harassment very clearly.  The same snowflakes who are offended by rainbow flag displays want the right to harass someone to death.

Online trolling doesn't really work as well in the real world.

And yet you and all the liberals here engage in online trolling EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,855
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Hannani
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...