‘Gays Against Groomers’ broke a pretty disturbing story the other day:
BREAKING: A transgender representative in Minnesota has introduced a bill that will remove the exclusion of pedophiles from the protected class of “sexual orientation.”
This means it will be illegal to discriminate against child rapists.
This is what we have been sounding the… pic.twitter.com/9Rjbp6C6rz
— Gays Against Groomers (@againstgrmrs) April 26, 2023
The text that was cut off says:
This is what we have been sounding the alarm on. There is a concerted effort to normalize the sexualization of children and to legalize pedophilia. This is just one more step toward that end goal.
We need everyone to join in this fight before it is too late.
Yesterday afternoon, this prompted an extremely angry response from the transgender lawmaker in question, Leigh Finke. Mr. Finke was born as a man and ‘transitioned’ to being a woman. Mr. Finke made quite a few accusations against ‘Gays Against Groomers.’
My final remarks about the past week, and the lies being spread about my work: The lie was created by an extremist hate group, G@ys Against Gr00mers.
This lie was amplified by the website Alpha News. It was then promoted and repeated by sitting GOP members of the MN House. pic.twitter.com/BCY18N50rQ— Leigh Finke (@leighfinke) April 30, 2023
Other GOP house members have shared this, and others have shared but deleted their tweets.
I would like folks to know that this group, embraced by the MN GOP s is an extremist hate group. It's sole purpose is violence against trans people. https://t.co/3ZZ5Gi3nkc
— Leigh Finke (@leighfinke) April 30, 2023
The reality of this organization is well known. They incite violence and profit from it. There is no justifiable argument for any elected official in America to endorse or ally with a group that is known to act in such a manner against political opponents. pic.twitter.com/vD4EfH67lY
— Leigh Finke (@leighfinke) April 30, 2023
And yet the MN GOP is amplifying this hatred. So much so that during the G@ys Against Gr00mers interview with Alpha News reporter Liz Collin, the group has stated they will be opening a chapter in Minnesota.
If you welcome hate, it will take root. pic.twitter.com/TLdBgC0PJp— Leigh Finke (@leighfinke) April 30, 2023
The nature of this organization is clear. The purpose of their work is clear. It is my sincere hope that everyone can recognize and reject the work of this group and speak out against them henceforth.
They do not hide who they are. pic.twitter.com/9dNdfzvQK0— Leigh Finke (@leighfinke) April 30, 2023
Let’s start with the first question: Was ‘Gays Against Groomers’ telling the truth? We will start with the language of the bill ‘Gays Against Groomers’ attached as a picture to their tweet. This is what actually appears on the Minnesota legislative website for Mr. Finke’s bill (HF1655):
Subd. 44. Sexual orientation.“Sexual orientation” means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness. “Sexual orientation” does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.
As you can see, it is exactly as ‘Gays Against Groomers’ said it was.
To help you decode it, just understand that it is common for legislatures in America to adopt essentially the same ‘visual language’ as tracked revisions in Microsoft Word. Therefore, the plain text is the language that is in the statutes now, before the bill makes any alterations. The underlined part is new text this bill proposes to insert into the statutes. And language struck out is the text in the original law that this bill proposes to delete.
Thus, the original version of the statue says:
Subd. 44. Sexual orientation. ‘Sexual orientation’ means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness. ‘Sexual orientation’ does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.
(Emphasis added.) If this bill became law without amendments, it would say:
Subd. 44. Sexual orientation. ‘Sexual orientation’ means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment.
The entire change to that portion of the law is a deletion, including a deletion of this part: ‘‘Sexual orientation’ does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.’ We will call that the ‘No Pedo clause.’
Now, you might ask, ‘what is the purpose of this definition in general? How is this definition used?’ Well, it drives what counts as illegal discrimination under their human rights statutes. For instance, Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subdivision 2, makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based on a number of factors, like ‘race, color, creed, religion’ and so on, including ‘sexual orientation.’ Minnesota’s human rights law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in a wide variety of situations and settings, including housing and public accommodations.
Does this mean that if this bill went into law, pedophiles would be protected from discrimination based on being pedophiles? We would say ‘probably not.’ This No Pedo clause is best described as an exception to the ‘main’ definition of sexual orientation, so you have to start with the main definition itself and ask if it can be interpreted as allowing courts to find discrimination against pedophiles to be unlawful in the first place. Again, it says:
‘Sexual orientation’ means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment.
In all frankness, the definition is a total mess talking about having an attachment to a specific person. We tend to think a judge would still get it and realize this is about preferences in partners by sex. But it’s not so clear that a judge with an agenda couldn’t interpret it to protect pedophiles. In that case, a No Pedo clause is useful. Furthermore, by removing the language, the courts might interpret that as a signal that the legislature is at least agnostic about protecting child molesters.
It is also useful in preventing litigation. With a No Pedo clause, there is probably no lawyer in Minnesota who would be willing to argue that pedophiles are protected by their states’ civil rights laws. Take it out, and they might see just enough of a chance to waste everyone’s time. That raises the cost of firing a pedophile and thus might make employers less wiling to do it.
But most crucially, there is no downside to leaving the No Pedo clause in this statute. None. As we say about guns, better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
As for the claim that ‘Gays Against Groomers’ is inciting violence, Mr. Finke should know better than that. The Supreme Court laid down the test for incitement in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), saying that
the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
So, to start off with, you need advocacy of violence. The closest ‘Gays Against Groomers’ comes is saying ‘We need everyone to join in this fight before it is too late.’ But we all know that people often refer to a peaceful political struggle as a ‘fight.’ Indeed, Mr. Finke has repeatedly used the word ‘fight’ in the exact same way:
Stay safe, fight, look good doing it.
Thanks to Planned Parenthood for all you do for all of our communities. https://t.co/vPghebHP1J— Leigh Finke (@leighfinke) April 29, 2023
Lotta people up at night and in the fight. pic.twitter.com/0uwm5URurP
— Leigh Finke (@leighfinke) November 8, 2022
North Dakota has signed their gender affirming care ban for minors. A truly devastating outcome, and a too familiar one.
To our neighbors to the west, Minnesota will welcome you. We will offer healthcare, security, and hope.
Stay strong and fight.— Leigh Finke (@leighfinke) April 20, 2023
So grateful to In the fight with these powerhouses.
We are on the floor, and at some point or other TONIGHT we will debate Trans Refuge. pic.twitter.com/TkpBuPtR6m— Leigh Finke (@leighfinke) March 23, 2023
Further, the definition of incitement requires that it be designed to cause imminent violence or lawlessness, and that it be likely to actually do so. And by imminent, the courts mean ‘right away.’ We won’t say it is impossible for a Tweet to meet this requirement, but it would require extremely atypical circumstances.
Now, you might say, ‘okay, maybe that is not legally incitement, but what about morally? Isn’t ‘Gays Against Groomers’ inspiring violence?’ Except all they are doing is accusing people of bad behavior and if we say that people can’t accuse others of bad behavior because it might inspire violence, that’s the end of freedom of the press in this country. A huge part of what the press does is accuse people of wrongdoing.
For instance, it seems safe to assume that Donald Trump has gotten a lot of death threats over the years. Therefore, no one can report negative stories about Donald Trump? It’s a ludicrous approach.
Naturally there were many reactions to the original story:
Every author on this list needs to be voted out. pic.twitter.com/fQwzdytHyt
— Barrington Martin II (@_BarringtonII) April 26, 2023
Thank God! https://t.co/dX7YjBAcXW
— 🇺🇸THE Original Mr. Johnson 🇺🇲 (@brandenj1972) April 27, 2023
That tweet claims that a new bill (HF447) was passed clarifying that Minnesota law didn’t make pedos into a protected class. There are two things to note about that:
First, it has not actually passed both houses. It is presently tabled in the Senate.
Second, it literally does what Mr. Finke’s bill (HF1655) does not: It deletes the protection for children in the definition of sexual orientation but, crucially, adds a section explicitly stating that pedophiles are not a protected class. Naturally, that would address our objection to Mr. Finke’s bill. But that is not Mr. Finke’s bill, and Mr. Finke’s version could still pass and place children at risk.
I'm trans and this is very upsetting to me. People are hiding among my kind that are pedophiles and more people like me need to speak up against this in States like Minnesota in person. When they have open to the public speaking people need to show up and speak.
— Moni 💕 (@MoniFunGirl) April 26, 2023
Normalization is the goal https://t.co/wofHYNaBoq
— 【 𝓓𝖗. 𝓥𝖔𝐱 𝓞𝖈𝖚𝖑𝖎 】 (@Vox_Oculi) April 28, 2023
thats awfully suspicious. check her internet history
— Jak (@JakTunes69) April 26, 2023
This is the tweet that ruffled Finke’s feathers. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, indeed! https://t.co/hbg8SH1Q3t
— Gays Against Groomers (@againstgrmrs) April 30, 2023
This normalization effort is being reinforced through language maneuvers that you don’t see and aren’t even aware are happening.
But nobody much cares.
I guess it’ll just fix itself, they seem to think.
🤷♀️ https://t.co/qynaOigU1i— Mulder’s Long Fight for Account Reinstatement (@proteinwisdom) April 28, 2023
As for Mr. Finke, he turned off replies, but not before getting a lot of pushback:
Are you against Gays that are against groomers? That’s a weird stance to have….
— igotnuthin (@igotnuthin) April 30, 2023
You mean this? I'm not republican or Democrat, i work for myself, and this is sick. pic.twitter.com/9PJfTlQvVK
— 🫧DaRenewableNoob🏳️⚧️ (@DaRenewableNoob) April 30, 2023
So can you address why that specific wording in the legislation needed to be removed? Why must that distinction not be made? I still haven’t heard you address it with anything other than accusing the other side of hate. It seems they have a very specific issue with the bill
— Proud American & Free-Thinking logic addict (@conservempls) April 30, 2023
Stop confusing the issue with logic!
And, naturally, closing replies doesn’t prevent quote tweets:
Why have you closed comments?
I have a sense it won’t be your final remarks. https://t.co/xKja5p8ggu
— Sinéad 💚🤍💜 (@sineadsiobhan) May 1, 2023
Representative @leighfinke deflects to attack critics instead of directly addressing the concerns over why the Rep is motivated to protect pedophilia as a sexual orientation.
Still hasn't answered the question and just mutes the replies. https://t.co/BLdwdxWn4t— Karla Tanner ♀️🦕🦖🐬🐬⬆️🇺🇸 (@lizabetty89) May 1, 2023
Nothing says: "I'm terrified of the ratio" like turning off replies. Can we get @CommunityNotes to clarify the lies here? https://t.co/7rAH9maEUq
— Crombopolis_Michael (@Woodcutcc) May 1, 2023
This person is lying, claiming @againstgrmrs is "lying" about his/her attempt to legislate pedos out of an exception for protected classes by insinuating the claim only appeared on fringe platforms, when this person validated the claims in a FOX interview. https://t.co/7ze6sybJD2 https://t.co/bNEnPwVk07 pic.twitter.com/WO1wwiKsAg
— Conspiracy Mill (@conspiracymill) May 1, 2023
You removed that language, did you not?
— I'm not really Bill Lumbergh, I just like the avi (@Jeff_Weimer) May 1, 2023
Notice they didn’t mention the bill at all. They just attacked the people that brought it to light. https://t.co/UCQAqUB7y1
— tommy_2_thumbs (Patriot) 👍🏻👌🏻🇺🇸 (@bronanbrobrien) May 1, 2023
Why can’t we comment on your posts? You’re a legislator!! https://t.co/8WfZlxnUgl
— JoJo (@jojoMomma37) May 1, 2023
Indeed, back when Donald Trump was a sitting president, was told he couldn’t block people on twitter, but he could mute them, because under the First Amendment replying to his tweets and arguing with other people in the replies was part of our national discourse.
President Trump forced to unblock dozens of Twitter users after court ruling https://t.co/UNfExhz7YS pic.twitter.com/Pw6bAUmRAN
— Mashable (@mashable) August 29, 2018
Wouldn’t that imply that Mr. Finke turning off replies is unconstitutional?
BREAKING: Cross-Dresser Caught Caping for Creeps!!!
In news that will shock no one, a noted cross-dresser tried to get pedophilia enshrined in state law. When caught doing this by stealth, cross-dresser blamed others for noticing his creepy behavior on behalf of other creeps https://t.co/lNG7QSRsyp— Michael (@Michael_AW77) May 1, 2023
Wait. Are you @leighfinke seriously saying Gays Against Groomers is an extremist hate group? Lol. https://t.co/Syw3fIueit
— Tertius (@TertiusIII) April 30, 2023
To the left, anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% of the time is an extremist member of a hate group. It’s tiresome.
As a final coda, a few months ago, USA Today gave Mr. Finke an honor that has aged badly:
USA Today defends ‘Women of the Year’ honors for transgender legislator Leigh Finkehttps://t.co/qeqPzJSMDh pic.twitter.com/kVJjaDoDl4
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) March 27, 2023
Mind you, he is one of many ‘women of the year’ but they sure know how to pick ’em.
***
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member