The Supreme Court earlier this week refused to revive a Florida law designed to restrict drag shows in the state. If you don't remember the origins of this, the case began when an Orlando restaurant, Hamburger Mary's, sued the state. In response to that, a district court judge in June [00:00:16] sided with Hamburger Mary's and barred state officials from enforcing the law. In a preliminary order, that ruling found the statute likely violates the First Amendment, in part because its vague language does not define lewd conduct or lewd exposure, and it was, quote, specifically designed to suppress [00:00:32] the speech of drag queen performers. Now, of course, it wasn't written to specifically do that or for you to know that that's what the goal was. But it's clear that that's what the goal was. And all you have to do is listen to literally any of the politicians involved in it, in their enthusiastic public appearances [00:00:48] over the course of years, where they have demonized and lied about drag performers. But there was a question, Will the Supreme Court side with the lower court? And thankfully they did. In a statement accompanying the Supreme Court order, two justices who were in the majority though this, Kavanaugh and Barrett, said their refusal [00:01:05] to reinstate the Florida law does not reflect their view about whether it violates the First Amendment. So, theoretically, they are protecting the performer's First Amendment rights while signaling to the country we still might be down to have people's First Amendment rights be restricted purely because of the art form they partake in [00:01:24] or the community that they're a part of. So stay tuned for developments in that area. You also have three other justices, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, who indicated that they would have allowed the law to take effect while the litigation continues. So theoretically, other perhaps state laws, a new version of this in Florida, [00:01:42] maybe the Supreme Court would be willing to play ball with that. But this is, at least for now, a good development coming out of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that has not provided many of those to us over the past few years. - Sharon, what do you make of that? - You're right. It is a good thing that's come out of this, this body. [00:01:59] Okay. Not their ethics stuff, but perhaps this. But I also think that you read there some things that are causing confusion because what is next from the Supreme Court, you know. And would that law cover, say, Lauren Boebert watching Beetlejuice with her boyfriend and acting a fool? [00:02:15] You know, it's like, where's that line? Where's that line for all of us? And they want to script it and draw it based on their own personal lives, but then they color outside the lines. So, I don't know. I just hear a lot of confusion, even in a decision that in this case, I like, I was. [00:02:32] Going to go so far as to give us a slow clap for the Supreme Court. But just one. - A literal slow clap. - Just one. [00:02:48] Because there it. Is. Like you said, you know, it's it's good news for now. It's, it's it's like limited good news for now. But of course, Amy Coney Barrett and freaking frat boy Kavanaugh [00:03:04] had to jump in and be like, oh, we still hate drag queens, though. We reserve the right to hate them enthusiastically in the future. Yeah, look, the Supreme Court is not great. That much is clear, and God only knows on any given day what they're going to do. But it could get worse. [00:03:21] And there's there's the sort of like the already the little movements indicating that they might be, again, willing to play ball. Glad that this was knocked down, particularly in a context like I don't want to run through all the hypocrisies, but it just is absurd that we live at a time where, man, the Republicans never stop talking about how much they hate [00:03:39] cancel culture and how they think that. Why are you saying I'm politically incorrect? They're saying these people's politics is incorrect. Also, their sexuality, their orientation, their existence is incorrect and they need to be canceled. Not in a colloquial sense, like it's so often used, where being canceled means that somebody's, like, insulted you on Twitter. [00:03:57] No, actually canceled by the government. Shut down through the force of law. They do that and they wipe out speech, and then they go back to saying that they're free speech warriors. It's utterly absurd. I don't know why it's not breaking through more how little any of that [00:04:13] ever actually meant to them. But at least the Supreme Court in this case isn't on their side. Hey, thanks for watching the video. We really appreciate it, guys, and we appreciate it if you become members, because that allows us to be independent, honest, progressive, all the things that you don't get from corporate media and all of that is because of you guys. [00:04:29] Hit the join button below and become one of us. Become a young Turk.