4 ms·
That sounds perfectly reasonable as long as the bill goes on to explicitly define in law exactly what is and is not age/developmentally appropriate. I'm going t
by autoexec 4y ago
That sounds perfectly reasonable as long as the bill goes on to explicitly define in law exactly what is and is not age/developmentally appropriate. I'm going to guess that it does not and that the true point of the law is to criminalize something poorly defined so that it can be used to selectively attack anyone who covers those subjects no matter how they do it.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
- magicalist 4y ago> Laws like this are intentionally vague so we can put such a person under the prison where they belong without having to worry about them weaseling out of it. This is freedom, apparently.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Consultant32452 4y agoYou don't have any freedom with children who are legally compelled to be alone in a room with you.
- pantalaimon 4y agoSexual education is not 'talking dirty' and 3rd graders are usually around 9 years old.
- Consultant32452 4y agoIf you can't see the obvious difference between covering the district approved sex ed curriculum and trying to push the legal limits of what you are allowed to say to children before you go to prison, you should not be allowed around children.