I read it as well. I believe you are mistaken- the new part is “ Intimidation”. And it is defined by the standard “ if a reasonable person” feels threatened. Penalties are certainly ( potentially) more harsh if there is some aspect of violence or property damage.
What I find interesting is that you feel THE ARTICLE is what is sensationalism. Yet you admit the law is ineffective virtue signaling.
so - in your eyes a “stupid law” which is ineffective virtue signaling is about to be signed - but the FACTUAL ( everything in the article is 100% true an accurate including numerous quotes taken directly from the Bill) reporting of it is sensationalism.
It seems obvious that the law is the real sensationalism.
To the first part: That law has functionally been on the books for a while, just not applying to that group. We have not not seen a rash of prosecutions to this end. This is in part because the standard for "intimidation" is regularly high in our legal system, in part because of our generous speech protections.
And yes, it is sensationalism. When you take a very unlikely outcome (basically impossible if you're just using the wrong pronouns), and and attach it to a punishment that's functionally impossibly to get, then make it a big blaring headline about how scary it all is. That would be sensationalism. If the headline read, "Michigan passes dumb, ineffectual law," not particularly sensationalized.
It's a fact that if you move to Florida, speeding could mean 5 years in prison. That's a real life fact. None the less, we are all grown ups and know it doesn't work that way. Translate that to this. Bad law, less for the gender part and more for the whole structure, sensational and misleading headline.
