It does seem to me that those lacks will make it way easier for those suing to stop this litigation. The word "overbroad" comes to mind. As a rhetorical question: is there anything in the first amendment that allows limiting a person's speech based on what clothes they are actually wearing? And would mimicking Cinderella losing a shoe…
It does seem to me that those lacks will make it way easier for those suing to stop this litigation. The word "overbroad" comes to mind. As a rhetorical question: is there anything in the first amendment that allows limiting a person's speech based on what clothes they are actually wearing? And would mimicking Cinderella losing a shoe count as removing clothing? This is going to be fascinating litigation to watch.
It does seem to me that those lacks will make it way easier for those suing to stop this litigation. The word "overbroad" comes to mind. As a rhetorical question: is there anything in the first amendment that allows limiting a person's speech based on what clothes they are actually wearing? And would mimicking Cinderella losing a shoe count as removing clothing? This is going to be fascinating litigation to watch.
Yes, overbreadth and vagueness arguments will be big parts of any challenges should this become law.