New Idaho bill aims to prevent minors from attending public ‘indecent sexual exhibitions'
A new bill introduced in the Idaho Legislature on Thursday aims to limit minors' access to public performances considered 'indecent sexual exhibitions,' such as drag shows.
House Bill 230 — sponsored by Rep. Ted Hill, R-Eagle, and Sen. Ben Toews, R-Coeur d'Alene, — does not outright ban 'sexual exhibitions' in public. It would require event hosts, organizers and performers to verify people's age to attend public performances that are considered 'indecent sexual exhibitions.'
'The indecency standard that we're using here mirrors the same standard the (Federal Communications Commission) has used for decades now to regulate daytime television broadcasts,' Idaho Family Policy Center President Blaine Conzatti told the House State Affairs Committee. 'So if it's appropriate for daytime television broadcasts, then it's appropriate for a live performance in public where children might be present.'
The bill was drafted by the Idaho Family Policy Center, an organization that pushes for conservative Christian policies. In 2023, the group unsuccessfully spearheaded a bill to ban drag shows in public spaces, and this year it created legislation to require Bibles be taught in schools.
The bill does not explicitly say the words 'drag shows.' However, in a press release, the policy center said the legislation was inspired by drag shows held in public parks in Coeur d'Alene and Boise.
Minors who are exposed to 'sexual conduct' would have a right to sue event organizers for $5,000 in statutory damages as well as monetary damages for 'psychological, emotional, economic and physical harm suffered,' according to the bill.
'The (legislation) is narrowly tailored to promote the state of Idaho's interest in protecting kids from those indecent sexual exhibitions,' Conzatti said.
The House State Affairs Committee voted to introduce House Bill 230, clearing the way for a public hearing at a later date.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
From marginal religious groups to mainstream Christians: Why some see a shift in Supreme Court cases
The court's first case involving a Rastafarian highlights the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history, even as more cases come from mainstream Christian groups. WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from the Supreme Court in recent years, including three cases last term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More: Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Handcuffed to a chair while his dreadlocks were shaved off Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people, but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. 'The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions,' Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. 'That's kind of a legacy view,' said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a 2022 study found that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. 'The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values,' they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to a study by Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage 'appeared to fade into statistical insignificance,' they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, 'appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty.' Colorado and the gay wedding cake debate Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the court said Colorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More: How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban 'even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims.' More broadly, he said, the court's 'general hostility to the separation of church and state' erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. 'Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine,' he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'Eradicating anti-Christian Bias' and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in a July 28 memo they may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates Ruling for Amish built on to benefit other religions In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as it affirmed the religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument 'that probably few other religious groups or sects could make.' But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder in the 6-3 opinion he authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. 'Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority,' Alito wrote. More: Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a 2020 speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that 'religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.' He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives 'deserve no less protection,' Alito said about more recent cases. More: Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion `Clear pattern of preference for religious groups' Cornell Law School Professor Nelson Tebbe said more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. 'Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried,' Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. 'While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups,' he said. 'It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area.' Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. 'So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups,' he said. 'It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different.'
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
German Economy Minister Reiche says social systems under pressure
German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche believes that social security systems in Germany are under pressure. The Christian Democrat (CDU) politician said after a company visit in the western city of Essen on Thursday that a comprehensive - and critical - review of Germany's social systems is due in the autumn. "They must deliver what the citizens expect from them: security and reliability. But we also know that reforms are needed," Reiche said. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has spoken of a "reform autumn." "There is really nothing to add to that," she said. "Tipping point" The coalition has agreed to set up various commissions after the lower house of parliament, the Bundestag, returns from its July-August break, not only to examine the social security systems but also to develop reform proposals, said Reiche. She added that the reform of the social systems and the demographic imbalance is not solely an issue for the current government. "The challenge we are facing is that the so-called tipping point is getting closer, and we must therefore actively address the question of how we can combine different employment histories, labour demand, and immigration into such a good concept that we can maintain labour productivity at a high level in the future," she said. When asked whether the planned expansion of the mother's pension is still timely, Reiche said, "Measures that further burden the social security systems are indeed a challenge for our system." However, she noted that it is also primarily about individual workers. Criticism of pension proposal Reiche had sparked a broad debate with statements about increasing Germans' working life. German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said on Wednesday that it was very clearly set out in the coalition negotiations that there would be no increase in the retirement age. He stated that calls "from the sidelines" do not help. Reiche on tour The minister visited the medium-sized family business Agathon in Essen, a world-leading manufacturer of chocolate moulds for large-scale industrial production. The company relocated its headquarters from Bottrop to Essen at the beginning of the year and invested €15 million ($17.2 million) in the construction of a new production hall. Prior to this, Reiche visited German polyurethane and polycarbonate producer Covestro in Leverkusen. Solve the daily Crossword
Hamilton Spectator
16 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Province accepts $700K payout to fired minister
The provincial government won't challenge a labour board decision which awards more than $700,000 to a former cabinet minister, ending a 11-year legal battle over her firing from an agency leadership role. The Labour and Employment Board ruled Monday in favour of Margaret-Ann Blaney, who had served as a cabinet minister under Progressive Conservative premiers Bernard Lord and David Alward, as well as CEO of Efficiency New Brunswick after her 2012 retirement from politics. In 2014, the new Brian Gallant Liberal government fired Blaney, whose contract was set to run through 2017, and passed legislation to dissolve the agency which prevented her from suing over it, according to the decision, written by Labour and Employment Board chair David Mombourquette. The chair found the decision had infringed on Blaney's rights to political affiliation, and the legislation wasn't specific enough to override the Human Rights Act. He awarded Blaney at least $489,000 in lost wages and benefits and $230,000 in general damages, and ordered the province to make a formal apology. On Wednesday, Liberal Premier Susan Holt said in a statement the government accepted the board's ruling. 'New Brunswickers elected our government to do things differently and to lead based on what's right and fair,' Holt, a Liberal, wrote in the statement. 'An apology will be issued to Ms. Blaney and the financial conditions met.' Blaney told Brunswick News that when she received the news from her lawyer Kelly VanBuskirk, 'elation doesn't even begin to describe how I really felt.' '11 years is a long time,' she said in a phone call Thursday. 'That fight was so worth it.' The lengthy legal battle included a judicial review which found that a board of inquiry at the labour board could hear Blaney's Human Rights Act complaint, with the government unsuccessfully appealing in 2023. Blaney, a former journalist from Newfoundland and Labrador who lived in Rothesay, was first elected as an MLA in 1999 and served as a cabinet minister for Lord and then as a minister for the environment, status of women and energy following David Alward's election in 2010. In 2012, Blaney told Alward she needed to step back from cabinet to focus on her family responsibilities, and she told the board Alward offered her a five-year contract as president and CEO of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Agency of New Brunswick, also known as Efficiency New Brunswick, which had previously been held by former provincial NDP leader Elizabeth Weir. Blaney told the board that she was 'targeted for public criticism' after her appointment and during the 2014 election campaign, when Gallant's Liberals promised to remove her from the job if elected. On Oct. 6, 2014, the day before Gallant was to be sworn in, she told the board she was advised 'not to report for work' but had not been formally fired. She was locked out of her office on Oct. 14, and told that the government was winding up the agency on Oct. 17 in a message which 'assigned her to home duties,' according to the decision. She said she was informed in a letter on Oct. 14 that she would be paid until the 'terms of her severance' could be discussed, but the payments ran out in February 2015 without any talk of a severance package. The government introduced legislation in December 2014 to dissolve Efficiency NB which included a provision preventing any 'action, application or other proceeding for dismissal,' retroactive to Oct. 16, 2014. Blaney told the board the legislation made her a 'public pariah' and she had difficulty making business contacts, eventually selling her house and leaving the province. The chair found that any controversy surrounding her appointment was 'political in nature' and not related to Blaney's qualifications, experience or competence. He wrote that the government acted with 'contempt' towards Blaney and that the parts of the legislation which applied to Blaney's rights 'were enacted by the province in bad faith and constitute an abuse of power.' The award included lost wages from Feb. 25, 2015 through to the end of her contract in 2017, lost vacation, interest, general damages, the difference in sale price of her home, pension options and a written apology. VanBuskirk, who represented Blaney with Christopher Isnor and Isaac Corey, told Brunswick News by phone Wednesday that the decision aligned with their arguments 'and captured a lot of the sentiment that Margaret-Ann felt' upon her firing and the years had followed. He said that while there's an 'understanding' that positions like deputy ministers can be impacted by the change of government, Blaney's situation was different because she was on a fixed contract. The decision noted that had the government paid Blaney out, the impact on her would have been 'less severe.' 'The government went to the extraordinary step of passing legislation that targeted her and intended to strip away Margaret-Ann's legal rights, including her human rights,' VanBuskirk said. 'In my mind, it's not far away from the circumstances that we see in other countries like Russia and China... It's an unbelievable story, to be blunt.' Blaney told Brunswick News that Holt called her Wednesday to 'absolutely assure me that this is done' and apologize on behalf of the province. 'I am impressed that she acted so quickly and so decisively, and I think it says volumes about her leadership,' Blaney said. She said that the province's actions towards her had been 'intensely personal,' under both Gallant and Blaine Higgs's Tory government. Blaney said leaders treating people with 'respect and compassion and kindness' has a trickle down effect, and 'for me, to see that happening in New Brunswick gives me hope.' VanBuskirk said when you see Blaney 'endure what she endured for the last 11 years,' it's 'positive' that the government was ordered to apologize and 'admirable' that Holt has pledged to accept the decision. 'That's a very responsible position taken by Premier Holt. It doesn't fully erase, does it, the decimation of a person's life,' VanBuskirk said, calling her targeting 'a hard thing to repair.' Blaney, who is now retired at age 64 and living in St. John's, N.L., said she can now 'truly and fully move on,' saying the apology is an important symbolic gesture. 'It will allow me to absolutely move on from this and to know that justice has been served,' she said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
