Isn't this unconstitutional?

[Uannoyme]

Michigan passed a law that makes it a felony to use the wrong gender pronouns. Obviously, on the surface this is a clear 1st amendment violation, but they should know that. Is there some way it isn't that I'm just not aware of?

[OlderAndWiser]

1. The reports state that this bill was passed by the Michigan House of Representatives. Apparently, it must still be passed by the Michigan Senate and then signed by the Michigan Governor to become a law.

2. Yes, it seems to clearly be unconstitutional.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

There's no constitutional question, and the sources cited are egregious misrepresentation of the actual bill, which has passed the state's House but has a long way to go before becoming law. It is still subject to further revision (and from reading it, there will be clarifying revisions).

Look up Michigan House Bill 4474 and understand what it actually reads.

Some media outlets (mostly conservative ones) are reading into it as though not using someone's preferred pronouns "could conceivably" be interpreted as harassment or intimidation, but that is neither the intent nor the text of the law, and it would be quite a stretch to apply a hate crime statute for not addressing someone as they/them/ze/zir/sir/ma'am/etc.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

www.legislature.mi.gov/.../2023-HEBH-4474.pdf

[Juxtapose]

Given the gymnastics that legislatures are going through to charge Trump? I have little doubt they could stretch this bill to encroach on our freedoms.

[provokeesmokee]

Hate crimes and bullying are what you think freedom of speech is?

No wonder America is failing.

[Uannoyme]

You don't have the right to not be offended.

[Juxtapose]

You don't have a right to not be offended. What's next in Europe? Are you going to outlaw me calling you a bitch?

What a fucking pussy part of the world. No wonder you guys are being subjugated by immigrants and allowing roaming Muslim rape gangs to take your women.

[slatyb]

Source? You are correct, the first amendment gives people a right to be offensive, but not in all situations. An employer including the government can terminate an employee for inappropriate speech. A private business can expel customers who are obnoxious.

[Uannoyme]

www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/.../Michigan-residents-charged-felony-face-five-years-prison-using-wrong-pronouns.html

[Uannoyme]

Hold on that link isn't working

[Uannoyme]

www.themainewire.com/.../

I don't know if you'd consider that a reliable source, but the mainstream isn't reporting this. Bug surprise.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Here's a link to the proposed legislation as revised (subject to further revision), which is clearly being grossly misrepresented and thus misunderstood.
www.legislature.mi.gov/.../2023-HEBH-4474.pdf

[slatyb]

@LuvMeSomeBoys Of course it is. Thanks for posting.

[MementoMori777]

really? Michigan is so lucky, no they still have freedom of speech but just can't force everyone to play along, because its not right to turn it into a fact when its not, no laws were invaded with this and i hope it passes on to other states tbh

[Uannoyme]

I may have worded my question poorly. Referring to someone without using their preferred pronouns can incur a fine or jail

[MementoMori777]

yea when it comes to legal stuff, i agree, imagine people start misgendering babies when they are born and then it shows up on their certificate and stuff like that, im sure they let you claim to be what you eant as long as you dont claim it where it matters but who knows, either ways society is taking such a weird turn with all this self claiming gender stuff, you can't claim ehat you want, people have lost their ability to think logically and create delusions, its best this way for the future of the youth.

[Uannoyme]

Truth

[Anonymous]

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billengrossed/House/pdf/2023-HEBH-4474.pdf

It passed.

Is it unconstitutional? Probably. It will remain so until it is challenged. Meaning someone has to legally challenge it. Which takes years.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

They're probably going to argue it's a form of harassment, technically even being "annoying" in some states is considered "disorderly" and therefore illegal.

[Kaneki05]

Good. Hate crimes should be outlawed if a constitution disagree's with that then simply the constitution is wrong.

[LiamJHayden]

The only actual issue I see is a lack of definition of "intimidate." If that is defined as "hurt my feelings" then yes, it is unconstitutional. If it is instead defined as it normally is thgen it likely passes muster.

[KostasKouvalis]

Surely this must only apply to State agencies. There's no way that can be imposed on private businesses/citizens, but that still sounds extremely illegal. I thought Michigan was Conservative.

[Agape93]

Yeap it's unconstitutional. It's a political stunt. It will be overturned

[nawtee_me]

why don't we just call them all want to be, There those born male and those born female and those who want to be something else...

[Uannoyme]

Not the point

[Juxtapose]

Anytime you involve the government you are putting a gun to my head and making me do it. Are you going to put a gun to my head and make me call someone a "zir"? Really?

[Anonymous]

The Michigan law, of course, contains no such language. Why do people feel the need to push false narratives?

[Anonymous]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

[Uannoyme]

Ok, so you have no issue with your 1st amendment rights being violated? Because if it can be done to one, it can be done to all. So, if you're cool with people's rights being violated because you don't like them, don't cry when they come for yours.

[Jersey2]

We are afraid of batsh! t liberals and their off the wall nutty unworkable concepts. It’s loony tunes. It takes as much as 20 years to fix their nonsense. Two nutty things just got fixed this week.

[gorydetails]

Yup. The law will be overturned.

[Uannoyme]

Absolutely.

[DextroShade]

Woke leftists don't give a damn about the constitution or human rights. They are the worst scum.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yes it is. America seriously has some deranged leaders. 🙄

[Anonymous]

The law will never pass, for obvious reasons. It shouldn't and it won't. Sanity will prevail.

[abc3643]

Do you have a link to the legislation?

[abc3643]

0. The legislation is Michigan House Bill HB 4474.
1. The legislation was passed by the Michigan House of Representatives, not the Michigan Senate yet nor signed by the Governor of Michigan, so it is not currently a law.

This is the current version.

No, I think this is constitutional.
You have a First Amendment right to speak your mind because that is part of political discourse.
You do not have a First Amendment right to harass and threaten people which is what this bill is about.

www.legislature.mi.gov/.../2023-HEBH-4474.htm

This is the bill in its current form and cleaned up.
===========
Sec. 147b.

(1) A person is guilty of a hate crime if that person maliciously and intentionally does any of the following to an individual based in whole or in part on an actual or perceived characteristic of that individual listed under subsection (2), regardless of the existence of any other motivating factors:

(a) Uses force or violence on another individual.

(b) Causes bodily injury to another individual.

(c) Intimidates another individual.

(d) Damages, destroys, or defaces any real, personal, digital, or online property of another individual without the consent of that individual.

(e) Threatens, by word or act, to do any of the actions described under subdivisions (a) to (d).

(More: Subsection 2 is next)

[abc3643]

(2) The actual or perceived characteristics of another individual referenced under subsection (1) include all of the following:

(a) Race or color.

(b) Religion.

(c) Sex.

(d) Sexual orientation.

(e) Gender identity or expression.

(f) Physical or mental disability.

(g) Age.

(h) Ethnicity.

(i) National origin.

(j) Association or affiliation with an individual or group of individuals in whole or in part based on a characteristic described under subdivisions (a) to (i).

(More: Subsections 3 and 4 are next)

[abc3643]

(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(4) If any of the following conditions apply, a person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both:

(a) The violation results in bodily injury.

(b) The person has 1 or more prior convictions for violating subsection (1).

(c) A victim of the violation of subsection (1) is less than 18 years of age and the offender is at least 19 years of age.

(d) The person commits the violation of subsection (1) in concert with 1 or more other individuals.

(e) The person is in possession of a firearm during the commission of the violation of subsection (1).

(More: Subsection 5 is next)

[abc3643]

(5) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant having 1 or more prior convictions under subsection (4)(b), the prosecuting attorney shall include on the complaint and information a statement listing the prior conviction or convictions. The existence of the defendant's prior conviction or convictions must be determined by the court, without a jury, at sentencing or at a separate hearing for that purpose before sentencing. The existence of a prior conviction may be established by any evidence relevant for that purpose, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:

(a) A copy of the judgment of conviction.

(b) A transcript of a prior trial, plea-taking, or sentencing.

(c) Information contained in a presentence report.

(d) The defendant's statement.

(More: Subsection 6 is next)

[abc3643]

(6) In lieu of or in addition to the penalties described in subsection (3), the court may, if the defendant consents, impose an alternative sentence described under this subsection. In determining the suitability of an alternative sentence described under this subsection, the court shall consider the criminal history of the offender, the impact of the offense on the victim and wider community, the availability of the alternative sentence, and the nature of the violation. An alternative sentence may, if the entity chosen for community service is amenable, include an order requiring the offender to complete a period of community service intended to enhance the offender's understanding of the impact of the offense upon the victim and wider community.

(More: Subsection 7 is next)

[abc3643]

(7) The court may, if the defendant consents, reduce any penalty imposed under subsection (4) by not more than 20%, and impose an alternative sentence described under this subsection. In determining the suitability of an alternative sentence described under this subsection, the court shall consider the criminal history of the offender, the impact of the offense on the victim and wider community, the availability of the alternative sentence, and the nature of the violation. An alternative sentence may, if the entity chosen for community service is amenable, include an order requiring the offender to complete a period of community service intended to enhance the offender's understanding of the impact of the offense upon the victim and wider community.

(More: Subsections 8 and 9 are next; there are no more subsections to the bill.)

[abc3643]

(8) Regardless of the existence or outcome of any criminal prosecution, an individual who suffers bodily injury or damage to the individual's property as a result of a hate crime may bring a civil cause of action against the person who commits the offense to secure an injunction, actual damages, including damages for emotional distress, or other appropriate relief. A plaintiff who prevails in a civil action brought under this section may recover both of the following:

(a) Damages in the amount of 3 times the actual damages described in this subsection or $25,000.00, whichever is greater.

(b) Reasonable attorney fees and costs.

(9) As used in this section:

(a) "Gender identity or expression" means having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual's assigned sex at birth.

(b) "Intimidate" means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened. Intimidate does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.

[Alex8736]

It is so we will be looking at lawuits

[jshm2]

No. It's not unconstitutional

[Snakeyes7]

VERY unconstitutional.

[Akam93]

Yes it is.

[exitseven]

My pronouns are USA.