The law needs to catch up. MAGAs have been doing this for a while. Where they say absolute heinous stuff, under the gaze of "freedom of speech and expression" until it becomes accepted enough for some other asshole to be emboldened enough to try and get away with it or even get passed as law! A tactic loved by fascists around the globe. It works similarly to a false prophecy.

MAGAs can't rape women? They'll make it clear that women will have their rights revoked into the future so they better "get used to it" starting now. MAGAs can't kill women? They'll just take life critical healthcare away. With this combination it's not only EVEN MORE LIKELY than usual someone will get away with rape, but that it'll result in the woman's death!

"Your body, my choice" should be seen as a death threat and should be dealt with accordingly. Any kids saying this should be made vividly aware of just how fucking monstrous those words are, and should face detention or even the threat of expulsion if they refuse to stop it. This is not a light matter. We're talking about rasing rapist here!

But Americans sure don't seem to agree, they still see school shootings as a "whatever, put in more police officers" to shoot at the kids with guns kind of issue, so what do I know? I guess raping and shooting up kids is what America desires and I'm the weird foreigner brining in my weird values.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Maybe you missed the memo, but the law is not changing in our favor unfortunately.

[–] nednobbins@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Laws constantly need to catch up.

I'm not sure what law would be an improvement though. The courts tend to frown on laws that are directed at specific groups of people so you probably couldn't have something as specific as, "When a man says YBMC to a woman she's allowed to consider it a rape threat and knee him in the nuts." It also wouldn't be terribly effective since those people would likely find some variation that skirts the law but carries exactly the same message. That's so common a tactic we even have a name for it, "dogwhistles".

The most general form is a "stand your ground" law. Ie we don't question the motives of the "defender", we just assume they were right. That has some obvious issues too.

There might be something between those two that would work, but I don't know what it would be.