Assassin Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 (edited) Edited November 9, 2022 by Assassin
HeavyMetalAura Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 (edited) Misleading title. This only criminalizes adult entertainers appealing to the “prurient interest” where a child could see it. In theory, a drag queen could still perform in a child-friendly public area so long as they aren’t performing or doing anything “prurient,” meaning sexually explicit or otherwise provocative. According to the text provided, they could seemingly still perform at an 18+ drag show and be as sexually explicit as they want. They don’t specify - nor is it generally accepted - that cross-dressing is prurient in and of itself, so this does not ban drag in public, just sexual explicitness in public. To be clear: I’m a pro-drag, LGBTQ+ democratic socialist and think the GOP’s obsession with censoring drag is disgusting. But the way I read this bill, it doesn’t seem like they’re criminalizing drag specifically or at all; just performing in a “prurient” (sexually explicit) manner in a public place. Which IMO, isn’t that bad. I mean, there are issues here regarding freedom of expression, but I don’t think it’s wrong to not want your five year old to see t*tties out while someone - drag queen or not - lip syncs to S&M in public. Help me out - am I misreading this bill or what? Edited November 9, 2022 by HeavyMetalAura
HeavyMetalAura Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 (edited) 26 minutes ago, InventedGays said: I think you are reading it technically correct but maybe a little naively. This isn't banning drag, just keeping it in clubs essentially. Assuming this is designed to stop the drag queen story hour and stuff that have caused outrage, but I would be hesitant to believe the bolded. Republicans have continuously acted like just the act of being in drag is prurient and sexual by nature even if it isn't a sexual act being performed. Their lack of specification I assume is intentional so they can use that rule rather broad and loose. Very curious what this could mean for events like Pride tho seeing as how Pride's are technically held on public property I get what they're going for, but Republicans are going to face an uphill battle if they dare argue that the simple act of cross-dressing appeals to the prurient interest in and of itself. If these drag story times are being done in a child-friendly way - no sexy lip syncs, no provocative outfits, no swearing or dirty jokes - then ultimately that leaves only the cross-dressing that could be a problem (and of course, we know that Republicans do think the cross dressing is the problem). Legally, though, it's going to be very difficult to set this precedent. What constitutes "male or female impersonators?" Someone could claim to be female-identifying and then get away with dressing like a woman. Many drag queens are trans women and NB people who aren't men anyway, so technically they aren't cross-dressing or "impersonating" anyone. It's not impossible for them to set this precedent, and certainly they are trying to lay the groundwork to do so, but it's not going to be easy. Lines must be drawn between what is and isn't "gender impersonation." The only way to really enforce a full public drag-ban is to do forced genital checks on performers, start policing the way entertainers dress - and that could have implications like male performers not being allowed to have long hair, or female performers not having short hair, for example. It would be a violation of so many rights. There are just so many legal loopholes we can get around this. You're right, it will be interesting to see how this impacts Pride - and I guess then, we'll be able to determine how enforceable this really is and what exactly the terms "prurient" and "male and female impersonation" means in a legal sense. If it passes that is! Edited November 9, 2022 by HeavyMetalAura
VOSS Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 (edited) 58 minutes ago, HeavyMetalAura said: Misleading title. This only criminalizes adult entertainers appealing to the “prurient interest” where a child could see it. In theory, a drag queen could still perform in a child-friendly public area so long as they aren’t performing or doing anything “prurient,” meaning sexually explicit or otherwise provocative. According to the text provided, they could seemingly still perform at an 18+ drag show and be as sexually explicit as they want. They don’t specify - nor is it generally accepted - that cross-dressing is prurient in and of itself, so this does not ban drag in public, just sexual explicitness in public. To be clear: I’m a pro-drag, LGBTQ+ democratic socialist and think the GOP’s obsession with censoring drag is disgusting. But the way I read this bill, it doesn’t seem like they’re criminalizing drag specifically or at all; just performing in a “prurient” (sexually explicit) manner in a public place. Which IMO, isn’t that bad. I mean, there are issues here regarding freedom of expression, but I don’t think it’s wrong to not want your five year old to see t*tties out while someone - drag queen or not - lip syncs to S&M in public. Help me out - am I misreading this bill or what? The text is vague and creates a chilling effect. Take the "drag time story hours" and the like that this bill is surely aimed at. Sure, maybe the performances are not really "prurient" but are the schools/libraries/etc. that are putting them on really going to risk it and open themselves up to charges? Edited November 9, 2022 by VOSS
LatinFreak Posted November 9, 2022 Posted November 9, 2022 Children are getting shot in school every other month... But sure... Drag is the threat. (and I'm not even a fan of drag in ge eral but this is just dumb)
Recommended Posts