WEll, it would probably up to a DA to decide if they if the victim is credible and has evidence or witnesses to back up the pattern of harassment, and if a reasonable person would have felt "threatened" under those circumstances, then if charges are filed, a jury would decide innocence or guilt ... you know, like how things always work. Again, surprised I have to explain that to someone who says they are a lawyer.
It’s one thing to tell me I can’t say (X) on fear of punishment. That’s bad enough and ought to be reviled and resisted. It’s another thing to tell me I HAVE to say (Y) on pain of punishment. That’s a hard no.
Actaully, you still need to read the bill. Not only does it have to be repeated, but it has to be done in a way that is "actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened". Also, again, nothing in the Bill about misgendering and pronouns. You are embarrassing yourself by still insisting it's in there. Answer this, why are you so opposed to a bill that protects people from being "terrorized, frightened, or threatened"?
A'ight...I withdrew that post, though obviously not before you replied, but...I concede. The bill doesn't appear to say what the OP sold it as (which worth noting, as another poster pointed out--is much like the "don't say gay" law, which has been caricatured ad nauseam from the left side of the aisle). Not too far from our stalking law: 784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.— (1) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose. (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests. (c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section. (d) “Cyberstalk” means: 1. To engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, directly or indirectly, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at or pertaining to a specific person; or 2. To access, or attempt to access, the online accounts or Internet-connected home electronic systems of another person without that person’s permission, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose. (2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Misdemeanor without a threat, felony with a threat. But otherwise...(urrrrhhhgggghh.....) props to you. Point taken.
Or "Stand Your Ground" laws for that matter... which allow you kill someone if you "feel threatened" ... And Florida has taken it step further to say that it's up to the state to prove the person didn't "feel threatened" before they even file charges.
C'mon man...take your win, and be happy...don't go serving me up a pie I get to throw back in your face. The presumption for use of deadly force is limited to one's house or car, and the guy they use force against, is there unlawfully: 776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use: (a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or (b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. (2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. Who the hell wouldn't "feel threatened" if a complete stranger is in their house, and entered forcefully or unlawfully, and acts in any way that could be construed as potentially causing death or severe harm to them??? If you're in the wrong damn house, which you entered unlawfully or forcefully, you'd better be damn sure your conduct can't be construed as posing a threat to any-damn-one there lawfully. TBL, the presumption doesn't shift to the state, until the dead/injured guy is in the wrong place, which he/she entered via force or otherwise unlawfully, AND it appears reasonable to perceive he posed a threat.
I like the way you rewrote the statute, you should run as a delegate in Michigan. Because what you just said, is not what the statute said. He doesn’t use a reasonable person standard, it uses a subjective standard. Either way, the statute is pretty F’ing stupid as it’s regulating speech that makes you uncomfortable. If Michigan is going to be honest, this should be referred to as the “Karen law.”
You probably should read the bill again, because frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about, which seems to be your pattern. It doesn’t have to mention pronouns specifically in order for it to prohibit bad pronouns. It prohibits misgendering. The only way you misgender someone is by pronouns. If there’s another way, certainly let me know. I’m not aware of another way.
' I never said that was in the law, I said the DA would have to decide if a reasonable person would feel threatened, because that is always a subjective standard that they'll have to convince a jury of presumably reasonable people was meet -- the same standard already used in Stand your Ground and the stalking law quoted above. The DA knows they have to convince a jury, so they are not going to take that stupid Chuck Norris crap you posted above to court. DAs make decisions like that all time. A lawyer should know that.
Are some of you really acting as though saying “yes sir” to someone who identifies as a woman might send you to jail?
This will not end well when if gets to the SCOTUS. 9-0 beat-down of this absurd state violation of the a citizen's first Amendment right/s. It's NOT an Insult nor a hate crime (hate crimes will one day be found un-Constiotutional too) to call someone by their a benign normal gender/sex/name. You don't get to force your personal mental issues onto others by force of government (state government) jail.
I’m not opposed to such a bill, the problem is, this isn’t one of them. This bill is not designed to protect terrorized people, it is designed to punish speech and ideas. It is designed to compel citizens to adopt a warped use of the English language. As far as pronoun news, I’ve already posted how that applies multiple times above. If you’re too lazy to read the bill, that’s on you. As I said, don’t just take my word for it, take the word of the people who actually wrote the F’ing bill on what their intent was. You’re fighting against the people who wrote the bill. Lol
So you want the DA to rewrite the bill. It doesn’t work that way. The bill doesn’t use a reasonable person standard. It uses a subjective standard. If the victim feels threatened, there’s a crime. Irregardless of whether the “feeling” is justifiable.
You know that's not how it works. You can't just call the police say "I feel threatened, arrest that person", and police are going to run out and arrest someone ... for this law, police would want this thing called "evidence" that the person repeatedly harassed you in way that reasonable could have made you feel threatened.... because that's what the law says. This seems basic. BTW. when are you going to quote the part of the law that says misgendering is a crime -- as you have falsely stated?
The actual or perceived characteristics of another individual referenced under subsection (1) include all of the following: (a) Race or color. (b) Religion. (c) Sex. (d) Sexual orientation. (e) Gender identity or expression. (f) Physical or mental disability. (g) Age. (h) Ethnicity. (i) National origin. (j) Association or affiliation with an individual or group of individuals in whole or in part based on a characteristic described under subdivisions (a) to (i). Note, statute identifies immutable characteristics, such as race and sex, but instead of including gender, it includes “gender identity or expression.” How exactly does one trigger another’s gender identity, other than calling them by a gender that they don’t agree with? Put differently, you can only anger or aggravate somebody on the issue of gender identity if you don’t refer to that person by the gender that that person demands that you follow.
You gave up way too easily on this argument. The Michigan law and the Florida stand your ground law have nothing to do with each other as far as standards are concerned. There is an objective standard used in Florida. You cannot just shoot somebody because they walked into your house. You have to demonstrate reasonable fear, which the courts have generally concluded that the person has to have a weapon and has to be advancing toward you, or threatening you in some manner. Stand your ground literally means you’re not required to run or back away from somebody that is threatening you. Trying to equate the terror of being called, a dude, versus the terror of somebody chasing you with a hatchet, is beyond stupid
That's NOT EVEN CLOSE to what you claimed ... you said the law "prohibits misgendering" ... all you posted here is the list of protected classes under the law. But no where does it say it prohibits misgendering, does it? Just admit it. Do you also think the law makes it a crime to call a white person black, or a Satan worshipper a Buhdist? That would be really dumb if you believe that.
