Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[lazyboy97o]

I read the bill. It is not complex and does not use arcane language. Being written in straight-forward language, I am able to understand the bill. Did you consult an expert linguist to understand my post(s) before replying to them?

Linguistics: the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, historical-comparative linguistics, and applied linguistics.

There is clearly some disconnect because the author seems to think he wrote something entirely different. So either the author wrote what he intended and you are reading it wrong, or you are reading it right and the author somehow wrote something he did not intend and nobody told him because he somehow stumbled into writing something else that just happens to fix a pressing issue. One of those really strains credulity.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I read the bill. It is not complex and does not use arcane language. Being written in straight-forward language, I am able to understand the bill. Did you consult an expert linguist to understand my post(s) before replying to them?

Linguistics: the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, historical-comparative linguistics, and applied linguistics.

Do you really think that legal interpretations of language are the same as everyday or even academic interpretations? Just to take a rather famous example, I'm sure your aware that there is a rather lively legal debate over what the seemingly clear language of the US Constitution means.

So, to take one example, what is the operative LEGAL definition of "instruction?"

Oh, and a further question - would the bill ban showing a cartoon featuring a same-sex couple? How about one featuring a straight couple, such as almost every Disney cartoon ever made? Do you think, perhaps, some folks are waiting to file lawsuits over that sort of thing?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I will amend my post slightly by changing "(or soon would be instructing)" to "(or many Floridians believed soon would be instructing)". Apart from whether or not Florida public schools were currently instructing like this, if Floridians (through their elected representatives in the state legislature) believed that their public schools would soon be instructing like this based on the public schools in other states instructing like this, this would be reasonable legislation to enact. Are you challenging the assertion that public school in some states are instructing like this?

So we enact laws because people are afraid something might happen?

Show me a school curriculum that teaches kids in grades k-3 what sexual orientation is or means.

 

[morphi]

You would think that would be the case. Having had personal experience with legal documents and their meaning and consulting three different attorneys (not about this bill), you'd be wrong.

Am I wrong about

(1) the bill not being complex or using arcane language?

If so, please demonstrate using the text itself to show the complexity or the arcane language.

or,

(2) I am able to understand the bill?

Please demonstrate how I misunderstand the bill using the text of the bill.

 

[morphi]

So we enact laws because people are afraid something might happen?

Show me a school curriculum that teaches kids in grades k-3 what sexual orientation is.

We do it all the time. Regulations pertaining to climate change anyone?

And the use of the word "afraid" is meant to denigrate--making some appear to be overly fear-based and relying on their reptile brain only. I would agree that it is legitimate to pass legislation if your have reasonable cause to think something (that is the proper object of legislation) negative will happen and you want to stop that negative thing from happening.

Show me a school curriculum that teaches kids in grades k-3 what sexual orientation is.

You are not unsure that this occurs somewhere in the United States.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

We do it all the time. Regulations pertaining to climate change anyone?

And the use of the word "afraid" is meant to denigrate--making some appear to be overly fear-based and relying on their reptile brain only. I would agree that it is legitimate to pass legislation if your have reasonable cause to think something (that is the proper object of legislation) negative will happen and you want to stop that negative thing from happening.


You are not unsure that this occurs somewhere in the United States.

Show me a school curriculum that includes teaching children aged 8 and under about sexual orientation and gender identity. You're making the claim - provide the evidence.

At this point you aren't arguing in good faith. Climate change is based on scientific evidence. Seat belt laws are based on scientific evidence.

 

[morphi]

Do you really think that legal interpretations of language are the same as everyday or even academic interpretations? Just to take a rather famous example, I'm sure your aware that there is a rather lively legal debate over what the seemingly clear language of the US Constitution means.

So, to take one example, what is the operative LEGAL definition of "instruction?"

Oh, and a further question - would the bill ban showing a cartoon featuring a same-sex couple? How about one featuring a straight couple, such as almost every Disney cartoon ever made? Do you think, perhaps, some folks are waiting to file lawsuits over that sort of thing?

I am very aware of the complexities of coming to understand what any form of communication (text, spoken word, movements, etc.) "means". Effective communication (where your intended meaning is accurately conveyed to another person) is difficult.

Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) is notoriously difficult. The nature of the original language and its difference from our own and the vast distance in time and culture explain a lot of that. Constitutional interpretation is also difficult for the same reasons.

This bill does not suffer from many of those challenges. It is written in plain english and it is not complex. It is not of a different age or culture. This greatly increases our ability to accurately understand it.

I agree that "instruction" can have a range of meaning. It has a range of meaning in non-legal usages as well. Perhaps, like "age-appropriate", a more robust definition of that concept is already on the books.

I don't know what the courts would say about the cartoon you mentioned. I would think that if the cartoon were to explicitly instruct about sexual attraction, it would run-afoul of the law (bill). But if it just showed two characters of the same sex holding hands, I do not know what they would say about that. Holding hands is NOT sexual--especilly when viewed in a cartoon by kindergartners. Young children of the same sex hold hands all the time. I don't see why that would be deemed as "sexual".

 

[lazyboy97o]

But if it just showed two characters of the same sex holding hands, I do not know what they would say about that. Holding hands is NOT sexual--especilly when viewed in a cartoon by kindergartners. Young children of the same sex hold hands all the time. I don't see why that would be deemed as "sexual".

You don’t know why something that has already happened would happen again?

 

[morphi]

Show me a school curriculum that includes teaching children aged 8 and under about sexual orientation and gender identity. You're making the claim - provide the evidence.

In a world of limited resources, this would require the expenditure of resources (primarily time). I would be willing to expend those resources if I thought this were genuinely doubted. It is not. This is not to say that I do not know if this is happening in the United States. I have memory of learning about such instances. What I do not have at my fingertips is the bibliography of everything I have ever read about this. But again, I would be willing to get those sources if I thought you genuinely doubted this reality. You do not. Why ask for citations for something you do not doubt?

At this point you aren't arguing in good faith. Climate change is based on scientific evidence. Seat belt laws are based on scientific evidence.

I am NOT arguing in bad faith. Climate change (though informed by science--primarily software models with various assumptions) is a projection of what might happen. But I don't want to get into a quagmire on that topic. I too believe the climate will change in the future so what's the point?

Laws against burglary are also based on fears of what might happen in the future. We expect (/scare-quotes ARE AFRAID /unscare-quotes) burglary will happen in the future just as it has happened in the past. We want to reduce the amount of burglary in the future so we pass laws against burglary to serve as a deterence. Same thing with instructing about "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade--it has happen elsewhere and will most likely happen here (without an overriding reason to think it will not / could not). So people pass laws.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I am very aware of the complexities of coming to understand what any form of communication (text, spoken word, movements, etc.) "means". Effective communication (where your intended meaning is accurately conveyed to another person) is difficult.

Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) is notoriously difficult. The nature of the original language and its difference from our own and the vast distance in time and culture explain a lot of that. Constitutional interpretation is also difficult for the same reasons.

This bill does not suffer from many of those challenges. It is written in plain english and it is not complex. It is not of a different age or culture. This greatly increases our ability to accurately understand it.

I agree that "instruction" can have a range of meaning. It has a range of meaning in non-legal usages as well. Perhaps, like "age-appropriate", a more robust definition of that concept is already on the books.

I don't know what the courts would say about the cartoon you mentioned. I would think that if the cartoon were to explicitly instruct about sexual attraction, it would run-afoul of the law (bill). But if it just showed two characters of the same sex holding hands, I do not know what they would say about that. Holding hands is NOT sexual--especilly when viewed in a cartoon by kindergartners. Young children of the same sex hold hands all the time. I don't see why that would be deemed as "sexual".

Ignoring your overly cutesy first paragraphs, you just admitted your entire argument is predicated on a complete lack of understanding. You do not know the operative meanings of instruction or age-appropriate. You do not know if there are clarifying precedents "on the books." You do not know what the courts would say about a particular example. You shift, disingenuously, to a discussion of the "sexual" and not "sexual orientation."

The bill is intentionally vague specifically so it can be abused. It will unleash a wave of lawsuits directed against just the kind of discussion you say you consider reasonable. School districts will have to pay a great deal of money they don't have to defend themselves. The intentional vagueness and the resultant lawsuits and uncertainty will have a massive chilling effect. If the lawmakers had specific concerns, the language of the bill would be more legally specific. You repeatedly point out that this bill was supported by legislators voted into office by the people - but another key point of the ambiguity is that the legislators in question understand that the actual motivation underlying the bill and its intended consequences very well may not have majority approval, so its couched in intentionally ambiguous language and enforcement is left up to lawsuits backed by special interest groups.

 

[Casper Gutman]

A general question - can anyone point me to any legal experts (not primarily political pundits) who feel this is a well-written bill that will not open the door to a host of nuisance lawsuits and exert a chilling effect? I'm specifically interested in ones who engage with the text of the bill itself in depth. I'd like to read more on that position.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Same thing with instructing about "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade--it has happen elsewhere and will most likely happen here (without an overriding reason to think it will not / could not). So people pass laws.

Which would first require the Department of Education to change their curriculum and then individual school districts to change their specific curriculums at open school board meetings. Parents would still be allowed to remove their children from any such instruction.

 

[morphi]

Ignoring your overly cutesy first paragraphs,

My first paragraphs were not "cutesy" in any way. You brought up the challenges of legal interpretation (especially regarding the constitution). I agreed and expanded the discussion a bit. My comments were sincere and trying to establish common ground where possible. That you took them as "cutesy" says more about you than it does about me.

you just admitted your entire argument is predicated on a complete lack of understanding. You do not know the operative meanings of instruction or age-appropriate. You do not know if there are clarifying precedents "on the books." You do not know what the courts would say about a particular example. You shift, disingenuously, to a discussion of the "sexual" and not "sexual orientation."

I did no such thing. I do NOT have a complete lack of understanding. My understanding of this topic and its context exceeds that of most people who espouse opinions about it.

I know what "instruction" means while also agreeing that its meaning can also extend to a proximate technical meaning as well. That technical meaning will be close to the common meaning. If it is not, please demonstrate so.

I referenced "age-appropriate" to counter the argument that the bill did not make reference to definitions and limits regarding that term. I did not need to know the statute on the books where this term might be defined more precisely in order to make that argument.

Not knowing how a court will adjudicate a case in advance is no mark of misunderstanding a statute. You do not know either. Legal experts disagree about pending court opinions all the time.

There was nothing disingenuous about my use of the term "sexual". Feel free to read "sexual orientation" into that particular context. I was using a bit of shorthand. But clearly, sexual orientation requires the concept of sexual (attraction). It's right there in the name.

The bill is intentionally vague specifically so it can be abused. It will unleash a wave of lawsuits directed against just the kind of discussion you say you consider reasonable. School districts will have to pay a great deal of money they don't have to defend themselves. The intentional vagueness and the resultant lawsuits and uncertainty will have a massive chilling effect. If the lawmakers had specific concerns, the language of the bill would be more legally specific. You repeatedly point out that this bill was supported by legislators voted into office by the people - but another key point of the ambiguity is that the legislators in question understand that the actual motivation underlying the bill and its intended consequences very well may not have majority approval, so its couched in intentionally ambiguous language and enforcement is left up to lawsuits backed by special interest groups.

Any supposed chilling effect can work both ways if a school instructs regarding the straight sexual orientation. If this bill proves unworkable, it will be scrapped one way or another. That it will prove unworkable is conjecture and -- to make reference to another poster -- we shouldn't allow FEAR to guide our legislative efforts.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Regardless of your stance on this bill, the best part of the pandemic was give parents a window into the schools and what lessons and values were being imposed on them.

The output of this is more involved parenting and a refreshed and renovated relationship with a nation founded under God.

If you raise your kids right it won’t matter what other adults teach your kids.

“1003.42(1)(b) All instructional materials, as defined in s. 1006.29(2), used to teach reproductive health or any disease, including HIV/AIDS, its symptoms, development, and treatment, as part of the courses referenced in subsection (3), must be annually approved by a district school board in an open, noticed public meeting.”

“1003.42(3) Any student whose parent makes written request to the school principal shall be exempted from the teaching of reproductive health or any disease, including HIV/AIDS, its symptoms, development, and treatment. A student so exempted may not be penalized by reason of that exemption. Course descriptions for comprehensive health education shall not interfere with the local determination of appropriate curriculum which reflects local values and concerns. Each school district shall, on the district’s website homepage, notify parents of this right and the process to request an exemption. The home page must include a link for a student’s parent to access and review the instructional materials, as defined in s. 1006.29(2), used to teach the curriculum.“

 

[Prince-1]

And they will be fired for breach of contract.

If enough cast members walk they will not be fired. The PR nightmare would be overwhelming plus the fact they are short staffed already helps the employees.

 

[morphi]

If you raise your kids right it won’t matter what other adults teach your kids.

I wish this were true, but I do not think it is. I've seen it happen too many times.

 

[Californian Elitist]

If you raise your kids right it won’t matter what other adults teach your kids.

No.

 

[Casper Gutman]

My first paragraphs were not "cutesy" in any way. You brought up the challenges of legal interpretation (especially regarding the constitution). I agreed and expanded the discussion a bit. My comments were sincere and trying to establish common ground where possible. That you took them as "cutesy" says more about you than it does about me.


I did no such thing. I do NOT have a complete lack of understanding. My understanding of this topic and its context exceeds that of most people who espouse opinions about it.

I know what "instruction" means while also agreeing that its meaning can also extend to a proximate technical meaning as well. That technical meaning will be close to the common meaning. If it is not, please demonstrate so.

I referenced "age-appropriate" to counter the argument that the bill did not make reference to definitions and limits regarding that term. I did not need to know the statute on the books where this term might be defined more precisely in order to make that argument.

Not knowing how a court will adjudicate a case in advance is no mark of misunderstanding a statute. You do not know either. Legal experts disagree about pending court opinions all the time.

There was nothing disingenuous about my use of the term "sexual". Feel free to read "sexual orientation" into that particular context. I was using a bit of shorthand. But clearly, sexual orientation requires the concept of sexual (attraction). It's right there in the name.


Any supposed chilling effect can work both ways if a school instructs regarding the straight sexual orientation. If this bill proves unworkable, it will be scrapped one way or another. That it will prove unworkable is conjecture and -- to make reference to another poster -- we shouldn't allow FEAR to guide our legislative efforts.

Does "instruction" require a detailed pre-planned lesson? Does that lesson need to discuss same-sex relationships in depth, or would the simple acknowledgement that some children have two daddies suffice? Does a teacher's response to a child's question amount to instruction? Would a picture on a teacher's desk of a same-sex partner be considered instruction? Please don't just give your opinion, but respond with legal precedent - or point to a legal expert who supports your reading and engages in depth with the text of the bill.

Describe how you feel a bill intentionally designed to be "unworkable" will be "scrapped." How and when will that occur?

Would it alter your opinion of the bill if you knew that their was a well-funded network of special interest groups ready to file numerous lawsuits against even passing acknowledgement of same-sex partnerships with the intention of imposing considerable hardships on school districts and creating a sense of confusion and unease among educators that creates a chilling effect? What if the authors of the bill were specifically aligned with these groups?

 

[brb1006]

Disney workers plan walkout to protest 'Don't Say Gay' bill

Disney workers are planning walkouts during their breaks every day this week to protest CEO Bob Chapek’s slow response in publicly criticizing Florida’s so-called Don’t Say Gay legislation.

apnews.com

 

[seascape]

This law has a direct affect on Disney and the many thousands of CMs employed by the company.

I agree it has an affect on Cast Members. However, it has nothing to do with their employment, pay or benefits. The affect is entirely outside of their employment. Thus it does not belong on the general boards. I do not agree with everything The Walt Disney Company does but I love WDW and themeparks and so I go to many different parks. It doesn't matter what position the company takes on political issues, what matters is do I have a great time in the parks. Vacations are to escape the bad news in the real world and we really need that after two plus years of Covid19 and now, even worse, watching innocent people being killed in the Ukraine.