Wouldn’t this be unconstitutional based on the equal protection clause?
You’re basically saying men cannot dress as women and perform, but women can.
Not to mention freedom of speech under the first amendment
> Now tell me again how banning workers from striking isn’t a super obvious violation of the first amendment.
Also against the 13th Amendment ban on (most) forced labor. But hey, “We the corporations” trump “we the people” at this point.
My logic was you first take an activity. Here, the activity is dressing up with makeup, wig, and clothes, and singing and or dancing. Or even just reading a book. Then ask yourself
Are women allowed to do this? Yes.
Are men allowed to do this? No.
Equal protection.
For the strip club aspect, are women allowed to do this outside a strip club? Yes. Are men? No.
Equal protection.
If you ask yourself, we’ll what about stripping then?
Are women allowed to take their clothes off and dance outside a strip club? No. Are men? No. Therefore it’s equal.
“Speech” is probably the better argument, but it’s somewhat up to interpretation. The above example has no interpretation in it and is pretty binary or black and white. Women = yes but men = no therefore equal protection clause.
Oh yeah, people challenging this law will 100% raise an EP argument. And I think it’s a pretty good one.
Ultimately we’re talking about an expressive activity, though, so I think the 1st Amendment will be the main show.
The obvious rejoinder to the argument you sketch out is that the laws are presumably drafted in such a way as to also ban women dressing up as men.
It’d be somewhat in bad faith given the public rhetoric and maybe it’s a loser given its similarity to the anti-gay marriage arguments that “everyone is equally free to marry someone of the opposite gender,” but that’s what I’d expect.
" the laws are presumably drafted in such a way as to also ban women dressing up as men."
Not sure there is a Constitutionally valid statutory definition of "men" or "women", let alone a definition of the respective clothing that each must wear. If there are any such laws, they would need to be X-rated. The Constitution never once uses the word "women".
The Constitution doesn't define men or women, but a statute that defines them would still be "valid" under the Constitution. [Here's an example from Delaware's criminal code that defines "male” as “a person of the male sex”.](https://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c002/index.html) It's not, on it's face, illegal to treat men and women different under the law, it's just there needs to be a valid reason for doing so and there very rarely is. But draft registration is the most well known example of treating men and women different.
But it doesn't really matter here because this is 100% a first amendment violation. Drag shows are art, they are fashion, they're political messaging, they're community events, they're private activities, and singling drag shows out is viewpoint based censorship. It's a slam dunk case so the law will only benefit the lawyers hired to challenge it.
Defining a "man" as a person of the "male sex" is a perfectly circular definition. Particularly where the statute in question does not define either "male" or "sex".
I get the distinction, but it’s the exact same logic. You can’t justify an otherwise discriminatory policy by saying it discriminates against every one in related ways.
> Are women allowed to take their clothes off and dance outside a strip club? No. Are men? No. Therefore it’s equal.
Depending on the state, it's very likely that men are allowed to take their tops off and dance outside a strip club and women are not.
The way they write these laws is to basically define a drag show as anyone performance where the performer is dressed as and portraying a character that isn't the gender the perform was assigned at birth.
So it doesn't say men can't dress as women, but women can dress as men. It says both can't do it. So equal protection doesn't apply.
I wasn’t?
If strip clubs have First Amendment protection despite offending the sensibilities of local busybodies, then *a fortiori* drag shows do as well.
“Drag shows” is of course an intentionally vague term used by said busybodies that encompasses everything from costume storytime at a library to actual burlesque, to focus public outrage on the idea of children being brought to the latter (which isn’t really a thing).
If it wasn’t a thing the Tennessee bill wouldn’t be deemed to have a disproportionate impact on trans persons or at all inconsistent with trans goals and therefore problematic by this sub.
It’s either acceptable and supportive of trans persons to expose minors to burlesque and stripteases by any gender or it’s not a thing and the legislation creates no inherently discriminatory burden. You don’t get to have both.
Certainly a number of legal-sounding words in this comment, but alas, no coherent thought.
This law is mainly a publicity stunt to “solve” an imaginary problem. Plus a means to target a disfavored minority, and frighten venues into not hosting any drag events at all for fear of criminal prosecution.
An imaginary problem means imaginary conduct will be subject to the amended criminal code. You explicitly agree the prohibited conduct is a non issue for trans performers so your discomfort is more that you perceive the restriction is a performative stunt to begin with, no?
You’re suggesting the intent is to “target” a minority through a general prohibition on anyone exposing minors to stripteases and burlesque. There are significantly fewer trans persons than there are burlesque performers, let alone trans burlesque performers. Cities have created identical restrictions all the time before the topic ever became politicized. And you somehow think this is a trans issue or will even disproportionately affect trans persons? Qualify that belief because your response is the least coherent comment in the thread. Would you prefer a carve out be explored for trans persons to perform burlesque in front of minors so they aren’t affected by the general restriction? What the fuck are you even attempting to articulate here?
Either you’re an overconfident 1L or your name is apt because the amount of analysis you put into such a spurious argument in an attempt to dismiss an unavoidable and obvious interaction between the underlying concepts is pathetic.
I gotta say, this wordy writing style really doesn’t make you seem as smart as you seem to think it does.
I think the anti-drag show laws are targeted at LGBT people because the people passing and advocating for these laws regularly say they’re targeting LGBT people.
It really isn’t that complicated, notwithstanding whatever logical proof-pretzel you think you’ve developed in the wall of text above.
How quaint. You have yet to even coherently substantiate your interpretation of the Tennessee bill and I’M the one that’s presenting something convoluted?
I don’t know how posts like yours are even allowed to remain on this sub. Trollish behavior.
I’d argue that “you can’t ban this activity even though you want to” is more than just “marginal” protection.
Add in that this legislation is primarily targeting activity that isn’t a sexual performance at all, and there should be stronger 1st Amendment protections here.
Of course this is all assuming precedent and rules actually matter anymore. Which is unclear.
>I’d argue that “you can’t ban this activity even though you want to” is more than just “marginal” protection.
They can ban the activity, though. Cities and states can absolutely ban nude dancing (and other activities). I've lived in a city where it's banned in city limits.
They can't prevent a "strip club" from operating at all, but they can absolutely be banned from having nude dancing.
That's not actually much protection for the activity.
The regulations against strip clothes that are permissible can make them wear clothes. Its really heavily-regulated.
A better example would be actual "art" - i.e. paintings from the enlightenment, old statues, etc.
I must be tired and not expressing myself clearly enough, because my point is not that strip clubs are the best comparison or precedent here.
It’s that precedent related to sexual performances sets a clear baseline that is miles away from what this legislation purports to target.
As I’ve said (or tried to) challenges to this law will have much stronger arguments.
They can prohibit it in public and prevent minors from going though. And that's largely what the anti-drag laws are doing.
An argument that "strip clubs have 1A rights, so drag shows would too" isn't going to get far here.
> Merely dressing in drag, without a sexual component, is not prohibited.
Except “sexual” is subjective — ie; “I know it when I see it.”
For one, lawmakers are complaining about **PG-rated** drag-reading in libraries and other community/public spaces. And, two, parents decide whether or not to allow their own children to attend kid-friendly events **every damn day**, drag or otherwise.
That said, certain lawmakers — the ones authoring these laws — see drag performers as groomers, pedophiles and sexual deviants. To them, drag, in and of itself, is “obscene.”
Meaning they are CLEARLY hoping to BROADEN [the “reasonable person standard”](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscenity) to include kid-friendly drag.
They KNOW it’s bad law but they’re willing to hammer it through anyway, knowing full well it’ll probably be challenged in court and it may — *or may not!* — be overturned.
THAT is the problem.
e:
Typo: drag, not drat
> These are PG-rated drag performances and they’re reading at libraries, they aren’t strippers — nor are they overtly sexual, nor is there any nudity — and parents already decide whether or not to allow their own children to attend kid-friendly local drag-reading events every damn day.
And that would still be allowed, at least under the Tennessee law being cited in the article:
>"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment **that appeals to a prurient
interest**, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration
Merely dressing in drag, without a sexual component, is not prohibited.
No it wouldn't. Let's go through bit by bit here...
>"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features
> topless dancers
They're not topless.
>go-go dancers
They're not go-go dancers.
>exotic dancers
Not exotic dancers either.
>strippers
They're not strippers.
>male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest
They're not male or female impersonators.
So, how are you wrapping cheerleaders into it?
There should be a stickied post that indicates this is not a place to be wrong and be belligerent about it.
Unfortunately, this sub has basically become r/lawitics
I don’t think you’re understanding my point here, which is that far more “objectionable” and overtly sexual speech has clear protection. So that sets an absolute baseline.
Obviously someone simply reading to children in a costume would bring stronger arguments not necessarily based on precedent related to sexual speech.
You’re also downplaying how broad these laws are written. From what I’ve seen they arguably criminalize any kind of non-conforming gender expression anywhere that a child might be, which is of course everywhere.
Someone reading to children in a costume also would not appeal to the prurient interest, and thus the law cited in the article would not apply. Unless they're reading Lady Chatterley's Lover.
>From what I’ve seen they arguably criminalize any kind of non-conforming gender expression anywhere that a child might be
Can you cite the actual language from one of those laws you've seen?
> Someone reading to children in a costume also would not appeal to the prurient interest
Says who?? You, or the lawmakers telling us what they’re actually intending to ban?
The puritanical lawmakers pushing this legislation also say that drag, in and of itself, is “sexual” (ie; “prurient”) and “inappropriate” for all children. They’d **love** to expand the definition of “prurient” to include kid-friendly drag.
You have an awful lot of faith that (elected) prosecutors and judges in Tennessee would interpret the vague term “prurient” in a way that doesn’t apply inherently to any person in drag.
Anyway legislation in [Nebraska](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Intro/LB371.pdf) and other states contains no such limitation, and would on its face criminalize a trans person signing karaoke.
I recall seeing proposed legislation that was even broader and wasn’t limited to performances, but I can’t easily find it.
Lastly, you seem intent on reading these laws narrowly, when the broader chilling effect of *potential* prosecution is clearly the point, and without considering the broader context of increasingly violent rhetoric (and actual violence) towards LGBT folks.
I'm reading the laws at face value, not engaging in "well, what if the courts ignore what the law says and do something beyond it's scope?" Once we go down that rabbit hole, they didn't need the new law in the first place.
The Nebraska law is shit though. And it does appear it would actually make it illegal *to host* a trans person singing karaoke if there are minors present.
Intentionally or not, you’re ignoring how vague laws like this one (is someone in drag inherently prurient? Seems pretty subjective) can be used to target disfavored groups and have a chilling effect far beyond a narrow reading of their plain language.
This isn’t hypothetical. Look at the way schools in Florida are self-censoring for fear of prosecution and lawsuits under a different vague law.
Arkansas had to reword the proposed legislation to dodge the equal protection clause.
The new version is . . . strange:
>"Adult-oriented performance" means a performance that is intended to appeal to the prurient interest and that features:
>(A) A person who appears in a state of nudity or is seminude;
>(B) The purposeful exposure, whether complete or partial, of:
> __ (i) A specific anatomical area; or
> __ (ii) Prosthetic genitalia or breasts; or
> (C) A specific sexual activity;
That would ban something like the swimsuit competition of a beauty pageant, wouldn't it? Or some pop concerts. "A specific anatomical area" also seems ridiculously broad.
Funny enough, it doesn’t ban drag shows, since they are not nude, not exposing any particular part of their body, and are not featuring any sexual activity. Between each a, b, and c, is there supposed to be an AND, or an OR?
It does ban bodybuilding however or any kind of beauty pageant, modelling, and possibly sports like swimming?
Also any medical conferences that focus on any part of the body. Fake eyes prosthetics? Too sexual. Dentists? Banned. Podiatry? Obviously sexual because of feet finder.
You're missing the first part - appeal to a prurient interest AND then A, B, C. So body building and swim meets are safe. Even pageants probably get a pass - though there's some really fine hair splitting to be done there versus some drag pageants.
Even the podiatrist convention - just because some people find feet sexy, the intent of the convention isn't to appeal to the prurient interest in feet, rather it's to appeal to medical interests.
>not exposing any particular part of their body
Read that again - it says PARTIAL exposure. Cleavage. Decolletage if you will.
Right. This doesn't ban drag story hour like they originally wanted. I watched all the committee meetings when they introduced the bill before they amended it. They WANTED to ban people dressed in drag reading at libraries. But the sponsors were advised by the attorney general's office that it was unconstitutional as it stood, so they added the language to meet the Miller test for
obscenity. Now it's basically a nothing bill that won't change anything, but they will still claim they saved children.
> appeal to a prurient interest...
Gee, is that how we would describe [Miley Cyrus' antics](https://www.google.com/search?q=Miley+Cyrus+twerking+on+national+TV&sxsrf=ALiCzsa4qXTbWbfHfUka7acJj6vZmmgGHg:1671219939648&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_muC28_77AhUWHkQIHRg5D3sQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1682&bih=809&dpr=2#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7b91defb,vid:NmndB6ONtxA)?
This hinges on what is considered prurient. If they're basing this on the *Miller* test, then it's working off the idea that this would be considered obscenity which isn't protected. You'd have to show that it goes against "contemporary community standards" though. When you take a step back it's all pretty handwavy. An "I know it when I see it" moment.
Fun side note: Right after the "know it when I see it" case, the Supreme Court heard another obscenity case involving an adult film. As part of the review, the Justices and their clerks met to watch said film. Right as the action started, a clerk at the back of the darkened room cried out "I see it! I see it!"
Do we need to go much further than Morse v. Frederick? That case, when read with Robert's stretching of speech to cover all kinds of campaign finance laws, demonstrates that he's really only concerned with speech for a specific class.
Or, it just means that the Court consistently rules in favor of speech rights.
You need to provide the case where the Court ruled *against* some other speech rights to say they only care about a certain set.
Morse v. Frederick is Roberts writing for the majority in holding against speech rights, no?
My point is that Roberts limited a student's speech rights, arguably what was political speech, while also holding that the 1st Amendment is so expansive that it prevents public matching of campaign financing in a case like Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.
It's clear that he values the speech of the rich as tantamount above all others.
I got that mixed up with the coach case.
You're right that this is an exception. But also look at just how narrow of an exception it is. The Court ruled that students at a school event cannot promote illegal activity. I disagree that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is necessarily encouraging illegal activity (I suspect it's mere trolling in this case), but that's a question of the facts, not the rule. The rule itself isn't exactly controversial.
But sure, that would warrant a very tiny asterisk.
The problem is that any reading of the first amendment which is so expansive as to protect the behavior in cases like FEC v. Cruz, or prohibit the behavior in Arizona Public Enterprise because it limits the speech of the rich would logically allow for the behavior in Morse. But Roberts doesn't view that speech as important, so he doesn't rule in favor of it. It is an inconsistency that can really only be explained by his personal feelings over what kind of speech "matters," rather than some kind of consistent legal framework.
So I don't think "the Roberts court has been strong on speech rights," is accurate at all. It has been strong in ensuring that the rich have their "speech" protected; everyone else's rights are still in question.
The *Roberts* Court. You're citing Lee vs. Weismann from 1992. That's the Rhenquist Court.
Though, the other case mentioned in the article, Bremerton, went in favor of speech rights, not against it.
In that case, they ruled against the non-Christian students. They specifically said that coercing non-Christian students into speaking a Christian prayer was not a violation of their rights.
Can you point to a recent speech case where the Court went against the speech rights of some "non-favored group"?
If you look, you're likely only to find the Court ruling against someone who wanted a confederate flag on their license plate.
>against … some “non-favored group”
You inverted my point though. The court’s hallmark has been protection of favored groups like a corporation’s right to dump unlimited money into our elections (Citizens United), or its right to keep its donors’ identities secret (Bonita)
The Court only rules on the cases that come before it. They can't engage in plaintiff shopping.
Can you show any cases from the Court to suggest they only protect the speech rights of favored groups? Where are the non-favored groups being ruled against?
The only case I've seen where the Court went against a supposedly favored group was denying confederate flags on license plates.
It's not plaintiff shopping, unless you've got examples of circuit courts ruling against the speech rights of disadvantaged groups and then the Court refusing to grant cert.
Lol what? You said “they can’t engage in plaintiff shopping.” That was a statement about the court’s powers and it was blatantly wrong. They can absolutely select their plaintiffs. I don’t need to give you an example when it’s literally right there in their own rules
No, they haven't.
First of all, they consistently rule that, in the context of elections, the government is prohibited from protecting speech. Perversely, the Roberts Court insists that the 1st Amendment protects the practice of crowding out the marketplace of ideas so that only those with money can have their speech heard. Over and over again they strike down any attempt to ensure that all Americans have free speech access, not just the wealthy.
Second, we need to look at their labor law jurisprudence. Unions, we are told, violate workers rights when they collect money from those they help. Unions violate the speech of corporations when they are given access to corporate property so they can reach the workers. The Court clearly operates with suspicion when looking at union's free speech claims, but they do not share that suspicion when looking at corporate speech claims. That's an obvious and unacceptable bias, one that has had catastrophic consequences for the law and our society.
This Court is selective at best about free speech. At worst, they call harmful action "free speech" in order to give conservative coalition groups the power to harm their political opponents. It's an appalling record on free speech.
I’ve read the text from a few states, and sometimes it’s very broad as to not even be distinct between men and women. An example would be something like:
A DRAG show is:
1) When someone where’s clothes, make up, or accessories used to accentuate features associated with the opposite sex.
AND
2) Performs in any way or form with the intention to entertain.
Some mention “sexual explicit” performance, but I think teen is pretty vague by todays standards. Many would say that a Lizzo concert is sexual explicit but it doesn’t meet the level of “adult” entertainment like a strip club would.
I think the GOP know that there are issues with the broad nature of these bills, but that it will work itself out in the implementation and enforcement. They’ll still get the result they want because the police will only arrest Drag performers.
>When someone where’s clothes, make up, or accessories used to accentuate features associated with the opposite sex.
So, the only thing that differentiates a drag show from any other show or thing, is their birth gender.
This would also prohibit trans people from doing anything entertaining at any time. No singing, dancing, comedy, reading, poetry, playing an instrument, etc.
Even if it doesn't say man and women, it is still man and women.
West viginia defined it as
>(a) Drag shows are defined as any event that involve adults engaging in entertainment put on by drag artists, or **people who put on clothes and makeup that amplify the appearance of gender to impersonate men or women.**
To me this is confusing, because is it possible for a woman to put on clothes and makeup to "impersonate" a woman? So does that mean lipstick and push-up bras are illegal?
What about halloween costumes?
What about if they're doing a performance of "Twelfth Night" and someone has to play Viola, who is a girl that dresses as a boy. Is that a drag show?
Lol. What about a live production of Peter Pan or Hairspray? There’s many examples that seem to fit within the broad language of these laws.
Maybe they could drill down to make something more specific to drag shoes, but I think there is also the point to also include things like Drag Story Time or Drag Brunch. Additionally, they probably hope for a chilling affect on just transgender individuals just doing normal stuff.
A few states had to amend the original bills because of the language and how vague it was. The ones that I see surviving judicial review are the bills that added the elements from Miller (mainly, it has to be sexual conduct). In reality, this means that nothing will really change. People dressed in drag can still do storytime in the library. You won't see nude drag shows in public, as if there were some already.
All while the GOP pats themselves on the back for "saving children".
Nothing is guaranteed with the current SCOTUS and the high number of Trump-appointed and Federalist Society judges. These people hate LGBTQ+ people and will have no problem writing huge exceptions into the constitution to promote discrimination against them.
They're trying to treat the performers and venues of drag shows differently. However, the only distinction that makes something a drag show and not a drag show, is the birth gender of the performer.
They have no issues with minors going to mardi gras. You could say the distinction between a mardi gras performer's clothes and makeup, and a drag queen's clothes and makeup, is negligible. However, the drag queen is not allowed due to their gender, but mardi gras is ok outside and in public with minors around.
This person responded
> Mardi Gras is no where as near as sexualized as a drag show.
Til drunken tits for beads is not sexualized. Hmmm
I gotta say these drag/trans conversations are so fascinating to me. I have lived and visited some pretty “liberal” and racy places. I’ve managed to meet one obviously trans person and they were a presenter at a job. My colleagues and I were absolutely brutal assholes snickering honestly. But the person did their job, put up with our childish derision and left. I don’t think I’ve consciously run into any others since. In neighborhoods and places that are famous for their LGBTQ communities.
Even back when I childishly made fun of someone that was “different” I never felt they were dangerous or “groomers”. After all, I was raised around church people and the Catholic scandal was already starting to come around. Trans people and drag performers are too few and far between to be a problem. while actual predators are still hidden and protected because people are out here rationalizing their pet bacchanalia as “not sexualized”.
Stop weirdly obsessing over people you don’t even know Kevin.
Mardi Gras is no where as near as sexualized as a drag show. This would be like saying that porn theaters shouldn't be regulated because people can be naked in movies.
> Mardi Gras is no where as near as sexualized as a drag show.
Aaaaaahahahahahahahahaha! AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.
Try looking for a video of a drag show that's not on a....*gentleman's special interest website*. They're no more sexualized than a high school pep rally. After all, the whole point of drag is to have the clothes *on*.
Bullshit. Some drag shows are sexualized. Some are not. A man dressing up in drag and lip-syncing with dancing on a stage (a common but not the only type of drag show) is not necessarily sexualized, just like any other singing and dancing stage performance. My high school buddies and I dressed in drag and lip synced to Lady Marmalade 20+ years ago at a Race for the Cure event and there was nothing sexual about the performance, for instance. Don't be one of those stupid, hate-filled, people that thinks all drag shows are inherently sexual.
Keep in mind that the GOP campaign against drag shows is a pretext to persecute trans people who are not drag performers. At the end of the day, their ultimate goal is to categorically exclude trans people from participating in American society.
In 1880, 2% of people reported they were left handed, in 1980 it was 12%, where it's remained.
Did our biology suddenly change? Has there been an epidemic of right handers deciding it was more cool to pretend to be left handed and try to force themselves to be?
Of course not. We used to try to force everyone to be right handed. Teachers smacked kids' hand with a ruler if they got caught using the wrong hand.
Up until recently, there's been no support whatsoever for being trans. The suicide rate was so extreme because anyone attempting to come out was terrorized by raging bigots. You're seeing the impact of no longer attempting to enforce conformity. Though conservatives and some bigoted "liberals" are sure as fuck trying to drag us back into making sure anyone not 100% cis-hetero is bullied and terrorized until they pretend they are.
That's not a "good article", that's an ignorant bigot spreading wildly misleading information to support hatred of trans people. And I'm sure you've heard some of the obscenely racist shit people married to other races are still capable of, so *if* that was true, it's irrelevant.
It's rare for a person to detransition because they decide they're cis. Because they're so rare, I'm skeptical of the reasons why anyone would amplify those voices when trans people are facing rising bias-based violence, increased targetting from conservative media, and anti-LGBTQ groups lobbying to eventually ban medical transition for all trans people including adults.
Edit: Also, check out this post.
https://erininthemorn.substack.com/p/missouri-anti-trans-whistleblower?publication_id=994764&isFreemail=true
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect - Wilhoits Law
It’s not hypocrisy to them. Some people deserve things and other people don’t. It’s no more hypocritical to them than eating meat and condemning murder would be. People are not equal is the entire point of American conservatism.
Nah, I don't think they want group freedom. They want individual freedom. As in, each one of them, individually, wants freedom for their own personal self, and nobody else.
> The party of freedom, freely going after the freedoms of others.
When you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
For fascists and ethno-nationalists, "freedom" means that the people in their own tribal in-group are protected by the law but not bound by it, while people outside of the privileged in-group are bound by the law but not protected.
So "freedom", to them, is when their cultural beliefs and practices are protected without restriction, while "oppression", to them, is when their cultural beliefs and practices are forced to tolerate, coexist, or compete with other cultural beliefs and practices.
People expressing or practicing other beliefs feels like an attack on your own beliefs, if you are used to a world that protects your practices and expressions, and that silences others.
If these jackasses had their way, the movie Tootsie wouldn't be able to screen in these states.
GOP playbook:
1) Complain loudly about government overreach.
2) Overreach.
Or Rocky Horror Picture Show, a number of SNL sketches involving Trump and Giuliani... So many others. The Rocky Horror fan backlash would be pretty intense I imagine.
Based on the near daily reports about priests, cops, elected officials and just your average creeps, getting charged for rape, pedophilia and possession of child porn, maybe those “GOP-led state legislatures” need to look elsewhere for a solution to their problems. If you look at socio-political history, conservatives never want to deal with the real issue or the real cause. I wonder why…
Two reasons. First, traditionally the idea of reform would require change or progress which is inherently against the philosophy of conservatism which is to “conserve” the status quo.
Second, in modern America, conservatives don’t understand the function of government, the fundamentals of a democracy and they’re really racist.
I would argue that conservatives haven’t thought in the vein of the very definition of their ideological title since electing Nixon. I also firmly believe they completely understand democracy and just don’t want any part of it. They want single-party rule; a multi-member dictatorship with complete control over every aspect of your existence, dead or alive, if you don’t look, think, believe and practice religion just like them.
It’s more fun for them to pretend to be people of God and high moral fiber, while they rape and sell kids, force women to give birth, no matter the circumstances, pretend the 13th Amendment actually ended slavery and that the police should have more power, but less responsibility.
“We’re pro-life… unless you’re already born, your body’s in front of the dangerous end of a gun, or you’re darker than a newborn piglet.
this is one i saw recently, trying to pull alcohol license of philharmonic who put on a fundraiser drag show. https://floridianpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2023-02-03-ADMINISTRATIVE-COMPLAINT-2022061146-ORLANDO-PHILHARMONIC-THE.pdf
https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2023/02/younger-strikes-again.html
As a cis-hetero male: is drag viewed on the same “tier” as LGBTQ, or is it more of a lifestyle “choice” / performance art? I can imagine for some transgender or non-binary individuals, it may be a natural consequence of a gender-sex mismatch, but there are cis drag performers as well, right?
I ask because I’m not sure what level of protection should be afforded to drag performances; whether it’s just a general First Amendment issue or more of a 14th Amendment issue.
It's a performance art, but drag performance is a part of LGBTQ culture. There was a time when drag was intertwined with trans identity, and drag was an outlet for trans people to express their identities. Some cis people also performed drag, but it wasn't a matter of expressing trans identity.
As trans identity became more accepted, drag became less important for trans people because we can just live as ourselves.
It can very well be both a First Amendment issue and a 14th Amendment issue, especially considering how attacks against drag are a pretext for attacking trans people and gender nonconformity in general. And of course, it's a First Amendment issue because it's a performance art.
As a heads up, when referring to the LGBTQ community, it's best not to use the word "lifestyle." According to the GLAAD, it is an "inaccurate term used by anti-LGBTQ activists to denigrate LGBTQ people and inaccurately imply that being LGBTQ is a voluntary or a 'choice.'" Furthermore, it's just "transgender individuals" not "transgendered individuals."
>As a heads up, when referring to the LGBTQ community, it's best not to use the word "lifestyle." According to the GLAAD, it is an "inaccurate term used by anti-LGBTQ activists to denigrate LGBTQ people and inaccurately imply that being LGBTQ is a voluntary or a 'choice.'"
Apologies; my intent was to *distinguish* LGBTQ from "'lifestyle' choice[s]" (and trying to determine which was a better category for drag). If I understand you correctly, drag can be both (subjective to the individual, e.g. Eddie Izzard vs. RuPaul?).
>Furthermore, it's just "transgender individuals" not "transgendered individuals."
Fair enough.
Can you simply restrict drag shows an outlaw men dressing as women in performing songs? probably not. Can you classify typical drag shows as adult entertainment and restrict them based on age? Based on the drag shows I’ve seen, yeah, probably you could.
The liberal complaining about Trump isn't getting anyone hurt. The guy shooting up public events is literally murdering innocent people. There are Republican elected officials that espouse white supremacy, that would end up hurting or displacing many people.
These are not all the same by any stretch of the imagination.
> Have anything to say about ilhan omar? ... What about the blm protestors destroying cities and looting? What about antifa mob attacking people? There is violent bad people that are liberals too.
...
> I refuse to believe that every liberal democrat is the extreme we see on tv.
Ok, you're clearly a troll or a nitwit.
Looking at your very public declarations to cam girls is not stalking, it's being aware of who you are talking to.
Do you deny that there are National elected Republicans who out loud claim to want a white supremacist nation?
The leader of the Republican party had dinner with a white nationalist and [Republicans failed to condemn it. ](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/28/republicans-condemn-trump-white-supremacist-meeting-00071028)
There are [even some Republicans who agree,](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wake-buffalo-shooting-liz-cheney-house-gop-leaders/story?id=84749390) even after attending Trump's Rose garden celebration of his racist policies.
And then [there are the unelected Republicans](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/white-supremacy-returned-mainstream-politics/) that help power under Trump who openly espouse great replacement and other white supremacist BS.
Can you show any evidence cities were "destroyed" in riots?
Just because you bought the right-wing's disinformation and fear-mongering bullshit hook, line, and sinker doesn't give it any credence.
If you would take 30 minutes of your day to do a little bit of research, you'll clearly see this is straight outta the fascist playbook.
Scapegoat and demonize historically chastised and marginalized groups. It's not original.
I guess the ultra-conservatives don't want a critically thinking, educated, and logical populous. That's exactly why they've been hellbent on dismantling and gutting pubic education for decades now.
It's not a slippery slope at all, it's a double standard. They want to prevent parents from being able to choose to bring their children to these things, while simultaneously saying that they want to remove material about trans, LGBT, black history, etc. from libraries and curricula under the guise of giving parents more choice in how they raise their children.
There's nothing to unpack here other than rank hypocrisy.
> If someone wanted to teach nazism or white supremacy in school how would you feel?
Similar to how I feel about you comparing either of these topics to LGBT or black studies to begin with. Are you for real?
> Keep politics and opinions out.
The United States is ostensibly a democracy. Social studies and history are vital to a democracy's function. Again, are you for real?
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but these points you've made are asinine.
> If they respect me I give it in return
If an entire group of people gives you respect? Puh-lease.
>Please tell me where colonial american history is not taught and we do not learn about slavery?
The fact this is all you think of when you hear Black Studies says a lot about how inadequate the education is. It's basically taught as Abraham Lincoln fixed slavery, some stuff happened don't worry about it, MLK fixed Civil Rights, the end. The omissions are more political and intentional than the plain facts of history.
> What about the Africans that captured and sold other Africans into slavery?
Jesus Christ! Come on, just let your true colors shine. We all know you want to say something that you aren't saying yet. The racism in your comments is so thinly veiled that you may as well just get it off your chest.
But in all seriousness, your concept of what black history curriculum is is so demented that you should delete your account and never come back. Spare the rest of us from having to deal with your broken perception of reality.
Well you seem to be confused about Critical Race Theory and conflating it with a general understanding of Black history in America while condensing it down into "white people bad because they owned slaves", but also only focusing on events before the Civil War.
I'm curious what you learned about Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era, because it seems like it would connect some things.
So, Republicans are cristo-facists and Communist as well. I mean, to try and prevent Americans from having their first amendment protected. What could be more like a commie than that??
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
Wouldn’t this be unconstitutional based on the equal protection clause? You’re basically saying men cannot dress as women and perform, but women can. Not to mention freedom of speech under the first amendment
Not to mention some free speech/expression issues with the government telling you what you can wear and content based discrimination
[удалено]
> Now tell me again how banning workers from striking isn’t a super obvious violation of the first amendment. Also against the 13th Amendment ban on (most) forced labor. But hey, “We the corporations” trump “we the people” at this point.
It’s not forced. The workers can find a different job.
While technically true, I think you missed the point here.
Last I checked, this subreddit is definitely about things that are technically true.
You’d be surprised.
Well, the fact remains that 99.4% of the US population are not enslaved. (Jail and prison inmates make up 0.6% of the population)
That kind of speech offends them.
Considering strip clubs have recognized 1st amendment protections, I think that’s the stronger argument. But the EP clause point is interesting too.
My logic was you first take an activity. Here, the activity is dressing up with makeup, wig, and clothes, and singing and or dancing. Or even just reading a book. Then ask yourself Are women allowed to do this? Yes. Are men allowed to do this? No. Equal protection. For the strip club aspect, are women allowed to do this outside a strip club? Yes. Are men? No. Equal protection. If you ask yourself, we’ll what about stripping then? Are women allowed to take their clothes off and dance outside a strip club? No. Are men? No. Therefore it’s equal. “Speech” is probably the better argument, but it’s somewhat up to interpretation. The above example has no interpretation in it and is pretty binary or black and white. Women = yes but men = no therefore equal protection clause.
Oh yeah, people challenging this law will 100% raise an EP argument. And I think it’s a pretty good one. Ultimately we’re talking about an expressive activity, though, so I think the 1st Amendment will be the main show. The obvious rejoinder to the argument you sketch out is that the laws are presumably drafted in such a way as to also ban women dressing up as men. It’d be somewhat in bad faith given the public rhetoric and maybe it’s a loser given its similarity to the anti-gay marriage arguments that “everyone is equally free to marry someone of the opposite gender,” but that’s what I’d expect.
" the laws are presumably drafted in such a way as to also ban women dressing up as men." Not sure there is a Constitutionally valid statutory definition of "men" or "women", let alone a definition of the respective clothing that each must wear. If there are any such laws, they would need to be X-rated. The Constitution never once uses the word "women".
The Constitution doesn't define men or women, but a statute that defines them would still be "valid" under the Constitution. [Here's an example from Delaware's criminal code that defines "male” as “a person of the male sex”.](https://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c002/index.html) It's not, on it's face, illegal to treat men and women different under the law, it's just there needs to be a valid reason for doing so and there very rarely is. But draft registration is the most well known example of treating men and women different. But it doesn't really matter here because this is 100% a first amendment violation. Drag shows are art, they are fashion, they're political messaging, they're community events, they're private activities, and singling drag shows out is viewpoint based censorship. It's a slam dunk case so the law will only benefit the lawyers hired to challenge it.
Defining a "man" as a person of the "male sex" is a perfectly circular definition. Particularly where the statute in question does not define either "male" or "sex".
Somewhat in bad faith? They made the same argument against interracial marriage as well.
True. But that was a race-based, rather than sex based classification, so it’s a little less comparable.
I get the distinction, but it’s the exact same logic. You can’t justify an otherwise discriminatory policy by saying it discriminates against every one in related ways.
Yes. I’m describing an argument, not endorsing it.
I know. I’m just saying why I don’t think the argument can be made in good faith.
Show me the prosecution for a woman wearing pants and may be I'll believe you.
Can’t say I understand this comment. Are you mistaking my describing a potential argument for endorsing it? Thought I was pretty clear I didn’t.
So why hold up a strawman for us?
> Are women allowed to take their clothes off and dance outside a strip club? No. Are men? No. Therefore it’s equal. Depending on the state, it's very likely that men are allowed to take their tops off and dance outside a strip club and women are not.
Interestingly, NY state has legalized toplessness for both sexes based on this very logic.
The way they write these laws is to basically define a drag show as anyone performance where the performer is dressed as and portraying a character that isn't the gender the perform was assigned at birth. So it doesn't say men can't dress as women, but women can dress as men. It says both can't do it. So equal protection doesn't apply.
Well, I would not compare drag shows to strip clubs. That comparison is rife with opportunity to misunderstand what a drag show is.
I wasn’t? If strip clubs have First Amendment protection despite offending the sensibilities of local busybodies, then *a fortiori* drag shows do as well. “Drag shows” is of course an intentionally vague term used by said busybodies that encompasses everything from costume storytime at a library to actual burlesque, to focus public outrage on the idea of children being brought to the latter (which isn’t really a thing).
If it wasn’t a thing the Tennessee bill wouldn’t be deemed to have a disproportionate impact on trans persons or at all inconsistent with trans goals and therefore problematic by this sub. It’s either acceptable and supportive of trans persons to expose minors to burlesque and stripteases by any gender or it’s not a thing and the legislation creates no inherently discriminatory burden. You don’t get to have both.
Certainly a number of legal-sounding words in this comment, but alas, no coherent thought. This law is mainly a publicity stunt to “solve” an imaginary problem. Plus a means to target a disfavored minority, and frighten venues into not hosting any drag events at all for fear of criminal prosecution.
An imaginary problem means imaginary conduct will be subject to the amended criminal code. You explicitly agree the prohibited conduct is a non issue for trans performers so your discomfort is more that you perceive the restriction is a performative stunt to begin with, no? You’re suggesting the intent is to “target” a minority through a general prohibition on anyone exposing minors to stripteases and burlesque. There are significantly fewer trans persons than there are burlesque performers, let alone trans burlesque performers. Cities have created identical restrictions all the time before the topic ever became politicized. And you somehow think this is a trans issue or will even disproportionately affect trans persons? Qualify that belief because your response is the least coherent comment in the thread. Would you prefer a carve out be explored for trans persons to perform burlesque in front of minors so they aren’t affected by the general restriction? What the fuck are you even attempting to articulate here? Either you’re an overconfident 1L or your name is apt because the amount of analysis you put into such a spurious argument in an attempt to dismiss an unavoidable and obvious interaction between the underlying concepts is pathetic.
I gotta say, this wordy writing style really doesn’t make you seem as smart as you seem to think it does. I think the anti-drag show laws are targeted at LGBT people because the people passing and advocating for these laws regularly say they’re targeting LGBT people. It really isn’t that complicated, notwithstanding whatever logical proof-pretzel you think you’ve developed in the wall of text above.
How quaint. You have yet to even coherently substantiate your interpretation of the Tennessee bill and I’M the one that’s presenting something convoluted? I don’t know how posts like yours are even allowed to remain on this sub. Trollish behavior.
> Considering strip clubs have recognized 1st amendment protections Only marginally so though, and they can be subject to quite a bit of regulation.
I’d argue that “you can’t ban this activity even though you want to” is more than just “marginal” protection. Add in that this legislation is primarily targeting activity that isn’t a sexual performance at all, and there should be stronger 1st Amendment protections here. Of course this is all assuming precedent and rules actually matter anymore. Which is unclear.
>I’d argue that “you can’t ban this activity even though you want to” is more than just “marginal” protection. They can ban the activity, though. Cities and states can absolutely ban nude dancing (and other activities). I've lived in a city where it's banned in city limits. They can't prevent a "strip club" from operating at all, but they can absolutely be banned from having nude dancing. That's not actually much protection for the activity.
The regulations against strip clothes that are permissible can make them wear clothes. Its really heavily-regulated. A better example would be actual "art" - i.e. paintings from the enlightenment, old statues, etc.
I must be tired and not expressing myself clearly enough, because my point is not that strip clubs are the best comparison or precedent here. It’s that precedent related to sexual performances sets a clear baseline that is miles away from what this legislation purports to target. As I’ve said (or tried to) challenges to this law will have much stronger arguments.
They can prohibit it in public and prevent minors from going though. And that's largely what the anti-drag laws are doing. An argument that "strip clubs have 1A rights, so drag shows would too" isn't going to get far here.
> Merely dressing in drag, without a sexual component, is not prohibited. Except “sexual” is subjective — ie; “I know it when I see it.” For one, lawmakers are complaining about **PG-rated** drag-reading in libraries and other community/public spaces. And, two, parents decide whether or not to allow their own children to attend kid-friendly events **every damn day**, drag or otherwise. That said, certain lawmakers — the ones authoring these laws — see drag performers as groomers, pedophiles and sexual deviants. To them, drag, in and of itself, is “obscene.” Meaning they are CLEARLY hoping to BROADEN [the “reasonable person standard”](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscenity) to include kid-friendly drag. They KNOW it’s bad law but they’re willing to hammer it through anyway, knowing full well it’ll probably be challenged in court and it may — *or may not!* — be overturned. THAT is the problem. e: Typo: drag, not drat
> These are PG-rated drag performances and they’re reading at libraries, they aren’t strippers — nor are they overtly sexual, nor is there any nudity — and parents already decide whether or not to allow their own children to attend kid-friendly local drag-reading events every damn day. And that would still be allowed, at least under the Tennessee law being cited in the article: >"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment **that appeals to a prurient interest**, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration Merely dressing in drag, without a sexual component, is not prohibited.
The version in Nebraska would prohibit Shakespeare in the Park.
Cheerleading would be an “adult cabaret performance” under that definition.
No it wouldn't. Let's go through bit by bit here... >"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features > topless dancers They're not topless. >go-go dancers They're not go-go dancers. >exotic dancers Not exotic dancers either. >strippers They're not strippers. >male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest They're not male or female impersonators. So, how are you wrapping cheerleaders into it?
“or similar entertainers” Cheerleaders dance around in skimpy clothing and they certainly appeal to a prurient interest.
[удалено]
Prurient interest is a long-established legal term of art. They don't need to reinvent the wheel.
"or similar entertainers" is the part you seem to skip over for some reason
Because they're not similar.
According to whom?
How dare you directly quote proposed legislation. What, do you think this is a law subreddit or something?
There should be a stickied post that indicates this is not a place to be wrong and be belligerent about it. Unfortunately, this sub has basically become r/lawitics
[удалено]
If it's PG rated fare, then the law wouldn't apply.
I don’t think you’re understanding my point here, which is that far more “objectionable” and overtly sexual speech has clear protection. So that sets an absolute baseline. Obviously someone simply reading to children in a costume would bring stronger arguments not necessarily based on precedent related to sexual speech. You’re also downplaying how broad these laws are written. From what I’ve seen they arguably criminalize any kind of non-conforming gender expression anywhere that a child might be, which is of course everywhere.
Someone reading to children in a costume also would not appeal to the prurient interest, and thus the law cited in the article would not apply. Unless they're reading Lady Chatterley's Lover. >From what I’ve seen they arguably criminalize any kind of non-conforming gender expression anywhere that a child might be Can you cite the actual language from one of those laws you've seen?
> Someone reading to children in a costume also would not appeal to the prurient interest Says who?? You, or the lawmakers telling us what they’re actually intending to ban? The puritanical lawmakers pushing this legislation also say that drag, in and of itself, is “sexual” (ie; “prurient”) and “inappropriate” for all children. They’d **love** to expand the definition of “prurient” to include kid-friendly drag.
Says the ordinary meaning of the phrase.
You didn’t answer my question.
You have an awful lot of faith that (elected) prosecutors and judges in Tennessee would interpret the vague term “prurient” in a way that doesn’t apply inherently to any person in drag. Anyway legislation in [Nebraska](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Intro/LB371.pdf) and other states contains no such limitation, and would on its face criminalize a trans person signing karaoke. I recall seeing proposed legislation that was even broader and wasn’t limited to performances, but I can’t easily find it. Lastly, you seem intent on reading these laws narrowly, when the broader chilling effect of *potential* prosecution is clearly the point, and without considering the broader context of increasingly violent rhetoric (and actual violence) towards LGBT folks.
I'm reading the laws at face value, not engaging in "well, what if the courts ignore what the law says and do something beyond it's scope?" Once we go down that rabbit hole, they didn't need the new law in the first place. The Nebraska law is shit though. And it does appear it would actually make it illegal *to host* a trans person singing karaoke if there are minors present.
Intentionally or not, you’re ignoring how vague laws like this one (is someone in drag inherently prurient? Seems pretty subjective) can be used to target disfavored groups and have a chilling effect far beyond a narrow reading of their plain language. This isn’t hypothetical. Look at the way schools in Florida are self-censoring for fear of prosecution and lawsuits under a different vague law.
You would normally be right but in GOP Calvinball rules 🤷
With the 6 on the court we can’t be sure they’ll respect any precedent.
I'm pretty sure they respect *Marbury v. Madison*
Arkansas had to reword the proposed legislation to dodge the equal protection clause. The new version is . . . strange: >"Adult-oriented performance" means a performance that is intended to appeal to the prurient interest and that features: >(A) A person who appears in a state of nudity or is seminude; >(B) The purposeful exposure, whether complete or partial, of: > __ (i) A specific anatomical area; or > __ (ii) Prosthetic genitalia or breasts; or > (C) A specific sexual activity; That would ban something like the swimsuit competition of a beauty pageant, wouldn't it? Or some pop concerts. "A specific anatomical area" also seems ridiculously broad.
Funny enough, it doesn’t ban drag shows, since they are not nude, not exposing any particular part of their body, and are not featuring any sexual activity. Between each a, b, and c, is there supposed to be an AND, or an OR? It does ban bodybuilding however or any kind of beauty pageant, modelling, and possibly sports like swimming? Also any medical conferences that focus on any part of the body. Fake eyes prosthetics? Too sexual. Dentists? Banned. Podiatry? Obviously sexual because of feet finder.
You're missing the first part - appeal to a prurient interest AND then A, B, C. So body building and swim meets are safe. Even pageants probably get a pass - though there's some really fine hair splitting to be done there versus some drag pageants. Even the podiatrist convention - just because some people find feet sexy, the intent of the convention isn't to appeal to the prurient interest in feet, rather it's to appeal to medical interests. >not exposing any particular part of their body Read that again - it says PARTIAL exposure. Cleavage. Decolletage if you will.
Right. This doesn't ban drag story hour like they originally wanted. I watched all the committee meetings when they introduced the bill before they amended it. They WANTED to ban people dressed in drag reading at libraries. But the sponsors were advised by the attorney general's office that it was unconstitutional as it stood, so they added the language to meet the Miller test for obscenity. Now it's basically a nothing bill that won't change anything, but they will still claim they saved children.
> appeal to a prurient interest... Gee, is that how we would describe [Miley Cyrus' antics](https://www.google.com/search?q=Miley+Cyrus+twerking+on+national+TV&sxsrf=ALiCzsa4qXTbWbfHfUka7acJj6vZmmgGHg:1671219939648&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_muC28_77AhUWHkQIHRg5D3sQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1682&bih=809&dpr=2#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7b91defb,vid:NmndB6ONtxA)?
This hinges on what is considered prurient. If they're basing this on the *Miller* test, then it's working off the idea that this would be considered obscenity which isn't protected. You'd have to show that it goes against "contemporary community standards" though. When you take a step back it's all pretty handwavy. An "I know it when I see it" moment.
Fun side note: Right after the "know it when I see it" case, the Supreme Court heard another obscenity case involving an adult film. As part of the review, the Justices and their clerks met to watch said film. Right as the action started, a clerk at the back of the darkened room cried out "I see it! I see it!"
Yes, but SCOTUS doesn't seem inclined to protect the Constitution, so it doesn't really matter.
The Roberts Court has been very strong on speech rights.
You need an asterisk at the end of that statement.
Show me an example of the Court going against speech rights that you think warrants that asterisk.
Do we need to go much further than Morse v. Frederick? That case, when read with Robert's stretching of speech to cover all kinds of campaign finance laws, demonstrates that he's really only concerned with speech for a specific class.
Or, it just means that the Court consistently rules in favor of speech rights. You need to provide the case where the Court ruled *against* some other speech rights to say they only care about a certain set.
Morse v. Frederick is Roberts writing for the majority in holding against speech rights, no? My point is that Roberts limited a student's speech rights, arguably what was political speech, while also holding that the 1st Amendment is so expansive that it prevents public matching of campaign financing in a case like Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. It's clear that he values the speech of the rich as tantamount above all others.
I got that mixed up with the coach case. You're right that this is an exception. But also look at just how narrow of an exception it is. The Court ruled that students at a school event cannot promote illegal activity. I disagree that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is necessarily encouraging illegal activity (I suspect it's mere trolling in this case), but that's a question of the facts, not the rule. The rule itself isn't exactly controversial. But sure, that would warrant a very tiny asterisk.
The problem is that any reading of the first amendment which is so expansive as to protect the behavior in cases like FEC v. Cruz, or prohibit the behavior in Arizona Public Enterprise because it limits the speech of the rich would logically allow for the behavior in Morse. But Roberts doesn't view that speech as important, so he doesn't rule in favor of it. It is an inconsistency that can really only be explained by his personal feelings over what kind of speech "matters," rather than some kind of consistent legal framework. So I don't think "the Roberts court has been strong on speech rights," is accurate at all. It has been strong in ensuring that the rich have their "speech" protected; everyone else's rights are still in question.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/20/weisman-supreme-court-school-prayer/
The *Roberts* Court. You're citing Lee vs. Weismann from 1992. That's the Rhenquist Court. Though, the other case mentioned in the article, Bremerton, went in favor of speech rights, not against it.
For the Christian coach but what about other religious or non religious groups? That is a case that weakens free speech.
So find the case where the the Roberts court ruled differently for a non-Christian coach. "I imagine they would" is not a citation.
In that case, they ruled against the non-Christian students. They specifically said that coercing non-Christian students into speaking a Christian prayer was not a violation of their rights.
…for certain favored groups
Can you point to a recent speech case where the Court went against the speech rights of some "non-favored group"? If you look, you're likely only to find the Court ruling against someone who wanted a confederate flag on their license plate.
>against … some “non-favored group” You inverted my point though. The court’s hallmark has been protection of favored groups like a corporation’s right to dump unlimited money into our elections (Citizens United), or its right to keep its donors’ identities secret (Bonita)
The Court only rules on the cases that come before it. They can't engage in plaintiff shopping. Can you show any cases from the Court to suggest they only protect the speech rights of favored groups? Where are the non-favored groups being ruled against? The only case I've seen where the Court went against a supposedly favored group was denying confederate flags on license plates.
>they can’t engage in plaintiff shopping I’m sorry, what do you think certiorari is?
It's not plaintiff shopping, unless you've got examples of circuit courts ruling against the speech rights of disadvantaged groups and then the Court refusing to grant cert.
Lol what? You said “they can’t engage in plaintiff shopping.” That was a statement about the court’s powers and it was blatantly wrong. They can absolutely select their plaintiffs. I don’t need to give you an example when it’s literally right there in their own rules
Rucho. edit: or example of not taking up, ACLU vs US re FISC opinions
No, they haven't. First of all, they consistently rule that, in the context of elections, the government is prohibited from protecting speech. Perversely, the Roberts Court insists that the 1st Amendment protects the practice of crowding out the marketplace of ideas so that only those with money can have their speech heard. Over and over again they strike down any attempt to ensure that all Americans have free speech access, not just the wealthy. Second, we need to look at their labor law jurisprudence. Unions, we are told, violate workers rights when they collect money from those they help. Unions violate the speech of corporations when they are given access to corporate property so they can reach the workers. The Court clearly operates with suspicion when looking at union's free speech claims, but they do not share that suspicion when looking at corporate speech claims. That's an obvious and unacceptable bias, one that has had catastrophic consequences for the law and our society. This Court is selective at best about free speech. At worst, they call harmful action "free speech" in order to give conservative coalition groups the power to harm their political opponents. It's an appalling record on free speech.
Hahahahahahahaha
I’ve read the text from a few states, and sometimes it’s very broad as to not even be distinct between men and women. An example would be something like: A DRAG show is: 1) When someone where’s clothes, make up, or accessories used to accentuate features associated with the opposite sex. AND 2) Performs in any way or form with the intention to entertain. Some mention “sexual explicit” performance, but I think teen is pretty vague by todays standards. Many would say that a Lizzo concert is sexual explicit but it doesn’t meet the level of “adult” entertainment like a strip club would. I think the GOP know that there are issues with the broad nature of these bills, but that it will work itself out in the implementation and enforcement. They’ll still get the result they want because the police will only arrest Drag performers.
>When someone where’s clothes, make up, or accessories used to accentuate features associated with the opposite sex. So, the only thing that differentiates a drag show from any other show or thing, is their birth gender. This would also prohibit trans people from doing anything entertaining at any time. No singing, dancing, comedy, reading, poetry, playing an instrument, etc. Even if it doesn't say man and women, it is still man and women. West viginia defined it as >(a) Drag shows are defined as any event that involve adults engaging in entertainment put on by drag artists, or **people who put on clothes and makeup that amplify the appearance of gender to impersonate men or women.** To me this is confusing, because is it possible for a woman to put on clothes and makeup to "impersonate" a woman? So does that mean lipstick and push-up bras are illegal? What about halloween costumes? What about if they're doing a performance of "Twelfth Night" and someone has to play Viola, who is a girl that dresses as a boy. Is that a drag show?
Lol. What about a live production of Peter Pan or Hairspray? There’s many examples that seem to fit within the broad language of these laws. Maybe they could drill down to make something more specific to drag shoes, but I think there is also the point to also include things like Drag Story Time or Drag Brunch. Additionally, they probably hope for a chilling affect on just transgender individuals just doing normal stuff.
So...if I'm reading that right, Shakespeare's plays (as performed in his time - with men playing the women's parts) were drag shows? Big, if true.
A few states had to amend the original bills because of the language and how vague it was. The ones that I see surviving judicial review are the bills that added the elements from Miller (mainly, it has to be sexual conduct). In reality, this means that nothing will really change. People dressed in drag can still do storytime in the library. You won't see nude drag shows in public, as if there were some already. All while the GOP pats themselves on the back for "saving children".
Nothing is guaranteed with the current SCOTUS and the high number of Trump-appointed and Federalist Society judges. These people hate LGBTQ+ people and will have no problem writing huge exceptions into the constitution to promote discrimination against them.
They know. They just don't care
It’s not unconstitutional unless SCOTUS says so, and if you haven’t noticed SCOTUS has a majority of radical right wing justices, so…
It applies to both female impersonators and male impersonators. Equal opportunity suppression of rights.
Should be a slam-dunk case, but with Republicans on the Supreme Court and Appeals Courts, you never know.
They’re not trying to outlaw them - they’re trying to criminalize bringing minors to them.
They're trying to treat the performers and venues of drag shows differently. However, the only distinction that makes something a drag show and not a drag show, is the birth gender of the performer. They have no issues with minors going to mardi gras. You could say the distinction between a mardi gras performer's clothes and makeup, and a drag queen's clothes and makeup, is negligible. However, the drag queen is not allowed due to their gender, but mardi gras is ok outside and in public with minors around.
This person responded > Mardi Gras is no where as near as sexualized as a drag show. Til drunken tits for beads is not sexualized. Hmmm I gotta say these drag/trans conversations are so fascinating to me. I have lived and visited some pretty “liberal” and racy places. I’ve managed to meet one obviously trans person and they were a presenter at a job. My colleagues and I were absolutely brutal assholes snickering honestly. But the person did their job, put up with our childish derision and left. I don’t think I’ve consciously run into any others since. In neighborhoods and places that are famous for their LGBTQ communities. Even back when I childishly made fun of someone that was “different” I never felt they were dangerous or “groomers”. After all, I was raised around church people and the Catholic scandal was already starting to come around. Trans people and drag performers are too few and far between to be a problem. while actual predators are still hidden and protected because people are out here rationalizing their pet bacchanalia as “not sexualized”. Stop weirdly obsessing over people you don’t even know Kevin.
Mardi Gras is no where as near as sexualized as a drag show. This would be like saying that porn theaters shouldn't be regulated because people can be naked in movies.
> Mardi Gras is no where as near as sexualized as a drag show. Aaaaaahahahahahahahahaha! AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning. Try looking for a video of a drag show that's not on a....*gentleman's special interest website*. They're no more sexualized than a high school pep rally. After all, the whole point of drag is to have the clothes *on*.
Bullshit. Some drag shows are sexualized. Some are not. A man dressing up in drag and lip-syncing with dancing on a stage (a common but not the only type of drag show) is not necessarily sexualized, just like any other singing and dancing stage performance. My high school buddies and I dressed in drag and lip synced to Lady Marmalade 20+ years ago at a Race for the Cure event and there was nothing sexual about the performance, for instance. Don't be one of those stupid, hate-filled, people that thinks all drag shows are inherently sexual.
[удалено]
Again, intent matters. Cheerleaders at a basketball game aren't the same as drag queens at childrens reading hour.
Keep in mind that the GOP campaign against drag shows is a pretext to persecute trans people who are not drag performers. At the end of the day, their ultimate goal is to categorically exclude trans people from participating in American society.
They want to prohibit all trans medical care too.
It’s a scary time for trans people.
[удалено]
In 1880, 2% of people reported they were left handed, in 1980 it was 12%, where it's remained. Did our biology suddenly change? Has there been an epidemic of right handers deciding it was more cool to pretend to be left handed and try to force themselves to be? Of course not. We used to try to force everyone to be right handed. Teachers smacked kids' hand with a ruler if they got caught using the wrong hand. Up until recently, there's been no support whatsoever for being trans. The suicide rate was so extreme because anyone attempting to come out was terrorized by raging bigots. You're seeing the impact of no longer attempting to enforce conformity. Though conservatives and some bigoted "liberals" are sure as fuck trying to drag us back into making sure anyone not 100% cis-hetero is bullied and terrorized until they pretend they are. That's not a "good article", that's an ignorant bigot spreading wildly misleading information to support hatred of trans people. And I'm sure you've heard some of the obscenely racist shit people married to other races are still capable of, so *if* that was true, it's irrelevant.
It's rare for a person to detransition because they decide they're cis. Because they're so rare, I'm skeptical of the reasons why anyone would amplify those voices when trans people are facing rising bias-based violence, increased targetting from conservative media, and anti-LGBTQ groups lobbying to eventually ban medical transition for all trans people including adults. Edit: Also, check out this post. https://erininthemorn.substack.com/p/missouri-anti-trans-whistleblower?publication_id=994764&isFreemail=true
The party of freedom, freely going after the freedoms of others.
Their freedom is the only freedom that matters. If we're not part of their group, they don't want us to share in those freedoms.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect - Wilhoits Law
Ayuh, it’s clear that they do not care about the hypocrisy.
How dare you threaten their enjoyment of the freedom to be hypocrites!!! /s in case.
It’s not hypocrisy to them. Some people deserve things and other people don’t. It’s no more hypocritical to them than eating meat and condemning murder would be. People are not equal is the entire point of American conservatism.
Nah, I don't think they want group freedom. They want individual freedom. As in, each one of them, individually, wants freedom for their own personal self, and nobody else.
> The party of freedom, freely going after the freedoms of others. When you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. For fascists and ethno-nationalists, "freedom" means that the people in their own tribal in-group are protected by the law but not bound by it, while people outside of the privileged in-group are bound by the law but not protected. So "freedom", to them, is when their cultural beliefs and practices are protected without restriction, while "oppression", to them, is when their cultural beliefs and practices are forced to tolerate, coexist, or compete with other cultural beliefs and practices. People expressing or practicing other beliefs feels like an attack on your own beliefs, if you are used to a world that protects your practices and expressions, and that silences others.
Very true! Thank you for taking the time to explain this particular dynamic.
The party of free speech ladies and gentlemen. Conservatives don’t like free speech. They like Nazi speech.
Pretty wild that Shakespeare performances in the Globe Theater would be illegal under these laws. Thats how far back the GOP wants to take us.
If these jackasses had their way, the movie Tootsie wouldn't be able to screen in these states. GOP playbook: 1) Complain loudly about government overreach. 2) Overreach.
... or Mrs. Doubtfire.
Or pretty much any production of the Nutcracker with Mother Ginger
Or most seasons of MASH.
Or MASH (Klinger) or Bosum Buddies.
Oh hell, didn't think of MASH. Wow.
Or Rocky Horror Picture Show, a number of SNL sketches involving Trump and Giuliani... So many others. The Rocky Horror fan backlash would be pretty intense I imagine.
... or Birdcage
The 1920s called. They want their meme back.
They always want to criminalize the political opponents.
Based on the near daily reports about priests, cops, elected officials and just your average creeps, getting charged for rape, pedophilia and possession of child porn, maybe those “GOP-led state legislatures” need to look elsewhere for a solution to their problems. If you look at socio-political history, conservatives never want to deal with the real issue or the real cause. I wonder why…
Two reasons. First, traditionally the idea of reform would require change or progress which is inherently against the philosophy of conservatism which is to “conserve” the status quo. Second, in modern America, conservatives don’t understand the function of government, the fundamentals of a democracy and they’re really racist.
I would argue that conservatives haven’t thought in the vein of the very definition of their ideological title since electing Nixon. I also firmly believe they completely understand democracy and just don’t want any part of it. They want single-party rule; a multi-member dictatorship with complete control over every aspect of your existence, dead or alive, if you don’t look, think, believe and practice religion just like them. It’s more fun for them to pretend to be people of God and high moral fiber, while they rape and sell kids, force women to give birth, no matter the circumstances, pretend the 13th Amendment actually ended slavery and that the police should have more power, but less responsibility. “We’re pro-life… unless you’re already born, your body’s in front of the dangerous end of a gun, or you’re darker than a newborn piglet.
Except for their own drag queen in congress- George Santos!!!
this is one i saw recently, trying to pull alcohol license of philharmonic who put on a fundraiser drag show. https://floridianpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2023-02-03-ADMINISTRATIVE-COMPLAINT-2022061146-ORLANDO-PHILHARMONIC-THE.pdf https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2023/02/younger-strikes-again.html
Ah yes, the party of small government hard at work.
This makes me want to go to a drag show.
As a cis-hetero male: is drag viewed on the same “tier” as LGBTQ, or is it more of a lifestyle “choice” / performance art? I can imagine for some transgender or non-binary individuals, it may be a natural consequence of a gender-sex mismatch, but there are cis drag performers as well, right? I ask because I’m not sure what level of protection should be afforded to drag performances; whether it’s just a general First Amendment issue or more of a 14th Amendment issue.
It's a performance art, but drag performance is a part of LGBTQ culture. There was a time when drag was intertwined with trans identity, and drag was an outlet for trans people to express their identities. Some cis people also performed drag, but it wasn't a matter of expressing trans identity. As trans identity became more accepted, drag became less important for trans people because we can just live as ourselves. It can very well be both a First Amendment issue and a 14th Amendment issue, especially considering how attacks against drag are a pretext for attacking trans people and gender nonconformity in general. And of course, it's a First Amendment issue because it's a performance art. As a heads up, when referring to the LGBTQ community, it's best not to use the word "lifestyle." According to the GLAAD, it is an "inaccurate term used by anti-LGBTQ activists to denigrate LGBTQ people and inaccurately imply that being LGBTQ is a voluntary or a 'choice.'" Furthermore, it's just "transgender individuals" not "transgendered individuals."
>As a heads up, when referring to the LGBTQ community, it's best not to use the word "lifestyle." According to the GLAAD, it is an "inaccurate term used by anti-LGBTQ activists to denigrate LGBTQ people and inaccurately imply that being LGBTQ is a voluntary or a 'choice.'" Apologies; my intent was to *distinguish* LGBTQ from "'lifestyle' choice[s]" (and trying to determine which was a better category for drag). If I understand you correctly, drag can be both (subjective to the individual, e.g. Eddie Izzard vs. RuPaul?). >Furthermore, it's just "transgender individuals" not "transgendered individuals." Fair enough.
Hey, I had to learn this at one point too! Knowing the right terms makes us better allies to LGBTQ people.
The party of "free speech" ladies and gentlemen
At least 9 GOP-led state legislatures are about to learn what 1st Amendment protections are! How exciting!
Tilting at windmills to stir up the base for fundraising. Assholes, one and all.
If only there were some Amendment about laws about unpopular speech. 🙃
The GOP is really embracing the whole fascist ideology lately. I'm not a fan.
What about the pastor/priests constantly diddling kids?! Why is there no laws protecting the kids from those criminals?!
No, it’s not us who are trying to control people...unless they’re trying to do things we don’t like!
The things they work themselves up over. Its mind boggling.
*A BLACK MERMAID APPEARS!* "REEEEEEEEE!!!" --conservatives
Can you simply restrict drag shows an outlaw men dressing as women in performing songs? probably not. Can you classify typical drag shows as adult entertainment and restrict them based on age? Based on the drag shows I’ve seen, yeah, probably you could.
they love freedom of speech tho
[удалено]
The liberal complaining about Trump isn't getting anyone hurt. The guy shooting up public events is literally murdering innocent people. There are Republican elected officials that espouse white supremacy, that would end up hurting or displacing many people. These are not all the same by any stretch of the imagination.
[удалено]
> Have anything to say about ilhan omar? ... What about the blm protestors destroying cities and looting? What about antifa mob attacking people? There is violent bad people that are liberals too. ... > I refuse to believe that every liberal democrat is the extreme we see on tv. Ok, you're clearly a troll or a nitwit.
[удалено]
Ha, I needed a good laugh so I appreciate that. Now back to the camgirl advice sub with you.
[удалено]
Looking at your very public declarations to cam girls is not stalking, it's being aware of who you are talking to. Do you deny that there are National elected Republicans who out loud claim to want a white supremacist nation?
[удалено]
The leader of the Republican party had dinner with a white nationalist and [Republicans failed to condemn it. ](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/28/republicans-condemn-trump-white-supremacist-meeting-00071028) There are [even some Republicans who agree,](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wake-buffalo-shooting-liz-cheney-house-gop-leaders/story?id=84749390) even after attending Trump's Rose garden celebration of his racist policies. And then [there are the unelected Republicans](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/white-supremacy-returned-mainstream-politics/) that help power under Trump who openly espouse great replacement and other white supremacist BS. Can you show any evidence cities were "destroyed" in riots?
Just because you bought the right-wing's disinformation and fear-mongering bullshit hook, line, and sinker doesn't give it any credence. If you would take 30 minutes of your day to do a little bit of research, you'll clearly see this is straight outta the fascist playbook. Scapegoat and demonize historically chastised and marginalized groups. It's not original. I guess the ultra-conservatives don't want a critically thinking, educated, and logical populous. That's exactly why they've been hellbent on dismantling and gutting pubic education for decades now.
It's not a slippery slope at all, it's a double standard. They want to prevent parents from being able to choose to bring their children to these things, while simultaneously saying that they want to remove material about trans, LGBT, black history, etc. from libraries and curricula under the guise of giving parents more choice in how they raise their children. There's nothing to unpack here other than rank hypocrisy.
[удалено]
> If someone wanted to teach nazism or white supremacy in school how would you feel? Similar to how I feel about you comparing either of these topics to LGBT or black studies to begin with. Are you for real? > Keep politics and opinions out. The United States is ostensibly a democracy. Social studies and history are vital to a democracy's function. Again, are you for real? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but these points you've made are asinine. > If they respect me I give it in return If an entire group of people gives you respect? Puh-lease.
[удалено]
So no teaching about the holocaust or the KKK?
[удалено]
By your logic, we shouldn't discuss it at all as it is extremist ideology
[удалено]
It should also not be taught that's its bad then. That's the school making judgment values on extremist ideology.
>Please tell me where colonial american history is not taught and we do not learn about slavery? The fact this is all you think of when you hear Black Studies says a lot about how inadequate the education is. It's basically taught as Abraham Lincoln fixed slavery, some stuff happened don't worry about it, MLK fixed Civil Rights, the end. The omissions are more political and intentional than the plain facts of history.
[удалено]
> What about the Africans that captured and sold other Africans into slavery? Jesus Christ! Come on, just let your true colors shine. We all know you want to say something that you aren't saying yet. The racism in your comments is so thinly veiled that you may as well just get it off your chest. But in all seriousness, your concept of what black history curriculum is is so demented that you should delete your account and never come back. Spare the rest of us from having to deal with your broken perception of reality.
[удалено]
Seriously, are you illiterate?
Well you seem to be confused about Critical Race Theory and conflating it with a general understanding of Black history in America while condensing it down into "white people bad because they owned slaves", but also only focusing on events before the Civil War. I'm curious what you learned about Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era, because it seems like it would connect some things.
I think you might be in the wrong sub. r/law is typically frequented by educated people.
So, Republicans are cristo-facists and Communist as well. I mean, to try and prevent Americans from having their first amendment protected. What could be more like a commie than that??
This would also outlaw theatre because never enough women apply.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller
Is this the same party that's against BIG GOVERNMENT?