Texas’ ban on certain drag shows is unconstitutional, federal judge says
Texas’ ban on certain drag shows is unconstitutional, federal judge says
Senate Bill 12 would have prohibited performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children. Critics sued the state, saying it violated the First Amendment.
You're viewing a single thread.
I for one am fucking sick of hearing about this particular subject. Why is anyone talking about this?
Permanently Deleted
Are you child? If not, it doesn't affect your rights, as this law applies to children.
Nah, maybe just that it is fuckall business of government and they should concentrate on real issues instead of poking their nose into what clothes people wear?
Permanently Deleted
Drag shows are not a real issue, no. You constantly engaging with it as if it is one is exactly what these fuckers want.
I don't think you realize that if they ban people from wearing clothing counter to their biological sex on stage, it is quite easy to make that law apply offstage as well. This is a step towards making it illegal to be trans and yes, it is a real issue. Maybe you don't care about trans people's rights, but I sure as fuck do.
Maybe you don’t care about trans people’s rights, but I sure as fuck do.
He does. He prefers they have none.
Yes. That's literally the issue being discussed here that you seem to think is "too boring". You agree with the general sentiment here. Who are you mad at?
I'm mad that you all keep giving them traction by engaging with this toxic shit.
Everyone is well aware of their motivations, but keep falling for it anyway. This is a wedge issue.
"The only way to beat them is to just let them pass laws against people they dislike because otherwise, a lemmy user will get annoyed".
Totally. It's lemmy that's giving these stories traction... my bad, I guess I didn't realize the pull we had here 🙄
That is the small government republicans are advocating for to bring back "freedom". Aka enslave poor people, protect richt criminals and tell people what they can and cannot wear. God forbid money being spent on education, healthcare or infrastructure.
i am not an expert on the subject but i would imagine it’s because it has implications for the safety and legal rights of trans people. if they’re able to pass laws banning drag queens, they might then start (incorrectly) claiming that trans people are drag queens and thus those laws apply to them.
Exactly this.
Step 1) Declare that all drag performances are sexually explicit and therefore shouldn't be allowed near kids. This is false, of course. There are plenty of PG or G rated drag shows where nothing even remotely explicit happens, but they need this lie to be enshrined into law.
Step 2) Declare that trans people, by existing, are "performing drag in public." Again, false, but this would mean that trans people wouldn't be allowed to be dressed in their preferred gender anywhere there might be kids. Even simply walking through the grocery store would be declared "sexually explicit behavior in the presence of children" and could result in criminal charges.
The right will stop at nothing to enforce their radical Christian views on the country and they don't care whose lives they ruin to do this.
Not even just trans people... you know the end game of this kind of shit is to go back to a time where women don't wear pants (because they legally can't).
They're not banning drag queens, they're banning sexually explicit drag shows for children. Drag shows are still 100% legal.
They think all drag queens are sexually explicit and will enforce the law accordingly.
most drag queens are sexually explicit and I'm tired of pretending they're not.
Which drag shows are you going to, exactly?
Permanently Deleted
The government shouldn’t be able to force people to dress in any way or not to dress in any way.
What? You realize public nudity is illegal right?
Depends on the jurisdiction. It's not a universal law. Even in my state:
https://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/2015/06/public_nudity_in_oregon.html
All the major cities it's illegal though. But to my point, you said:
The government shouldn’t be able to force people to dress in any way or not to dress in any way.
So you disagree with the ability for a state to make a law against public nudity?
Not my quote, different user. ;)
In Oregon it came to a head because of 2 cases, a topless roller skater in downtown Portland, and another dude, I don't remember the town, who was fond of going to his mailbox nude.
In both cases it was ruled that nudity is not necessarily sexual.
So every year, we get the World Naked Bike Ride:
ah true my bad
There is a difference between burlesque shows and drag shows. There is some overlap in the venn diagram, but not all drag queens are sexually explicit.
The real question to ask, is if they are SOOOO concerned about sexual performances, why aren't they banning heteronormative burlesque performances?
Oh, right, because it's not actually about being sexually explicit.
Read the bill. It explicitly says "sexually oriented performance". And only in front of minors.
It specifically calls out drag shows. If you believe that all drag shows are inherently sexual, there wouldn't be a need to say:
"(B)AAa male performer exhibiting as a female, or a female performer exhibiting as a male, who uses clothing, makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience; and (2)AAappeals to the prurient interest in sex."
Maybe theres some confusion here. I don't think that every single drag show out there has sexual elements in it. I'm sure there are some people who can put together a show that is kid friendly enough. But there is a lot of inherent sexuality in drag, people know this but they pretend not to admit it when this conversation comes up. There's some pretty intentionally raunchy shit happening at some of them and a lot of drag queens did not appropriately reform their normal act to be suitable for kids. And i get why, because theres a fuckton of sexual stuff in drag shows. its in the culture.
Thus, if we actually look at the bill, it doesn't outlaw drag shows altogether. it outlaws sexually natured drag shows in front of children.
Thus, if we actually look at the bill, it doesn't outlaw drag shows altogether.
Laws must be viewed wholistically. You cannot simply examine the text as if it somehow came into being on its own and enforces itself as a perfectly neutral rule of nature. It is written and applied by humans. So, you must also look at the framers who wrote it and those who will apply it.
And if we do, we see that they mean all drag shows are sexual. You clearly do agree with this interpretation so I'm not sure why you're trying to deploy this smokescreen. They intend to use this as a ban on children being "exposed" to drag in any form, and it's hardly a stretch to argue it will be expanded to include trans people.
If you're not willing to engage with the honest reality, we're forced to assume you are a disingenuous propagandist and treat you accordingly.
Idk I think you have absorbed a bit too much of the narrative spin on it. You can read the bill here, it's VERY specific. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/SB00012F.pdf#navpanes=0
You keep hearing about the GOP vilifying and persecuting LGBTQ+ people because it's against the supposed ideals of the country and the GOP keep doing it. If you want news about LGBTQ+ issues to stop, you need to make the GOP stop.
You are being distracted. Focus. You CAN eat your local representative. One bite at a time.
People don't need to know what is in the chilli at the cookout.
Innocent people being villified, persecuted, attacked and oppressed isn't just a "distraction", it's a serious problem that's heading towards genocide.
We can chew bubble gum and walk at the same time, by which I mean deal with this AND their other fuckery.
It's actually very simple. Don't do sexually explicit shit around children. You are free to do it not in front of children and this law has no bearing on that.
Why are you defining drag shows as inherently sexually explicit? If a man wears a flowing dress with bloomers underneath, is it sexually explicit?
You know that's not what drag shows are. I've been to 3 different ones (with a group of a friends, not on my own) and every single one had some serious sexual undertones. The default means of "tipping" was tucking dollar bills down the drag queen's shirt, or simply tossing it at them like a stripper. They twerked with very revealing clothing on, etc. I wish you would just be honest about what drag shows actually consist of most of the time. Of course there are outliers but I think the history of drag shows clearly show demonstrate the inherent sexual nature of it all.
You went to three drag shows for adults. That's not what it's like when kids are there. Just like there are plays for adults and plays for kids or bands that play for adults and bands that play for kids. I saw They Might Be Giants in a bar after their children's album No came out. They swore. A lot. You would go to that show and say they weren't appropriate for children.
One of them had children around there was extensive twerking and other sexually explicit material. "That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal"
One of them. Well we better ban all of them then.
Ugh, this isn't a fucking joke, this is people's lives. You're allowed to focus on more than one thing too, btw
Because your apathy doesn't negate the attacks that marginalized people are facing.
I don't know. You're the one that clicked on the discussion thread. Seems silly to click a link for a discussion on a topic you're bored of. Maybe just keep scrolling next time.
Because republicans keep violating the constitution and trying to marginalize anyone who isn’t white hetero Christian.
funny how people here suddenly care about the constitution when it comes to showing children sexually explicit material.
Then read something else.
I bet you never gave a shit 5 years ago when all this was going on and no one gave a flying fuck about it.
This was never a problem until Republicans tried to start banning it. So that's why people are talking about it
Because keeping us fighting over this keeps us from going after billionaires.
We have a winner.
You’re telling people to back down from fighting back against persecution? Looking like a target, bruh
1A issues are important. I'm just sick of misleading or lying headlines.
Because dismantling freedom of speech in the name of establishing a state religion is literally violating rule #1 of America to destroy another portion of rule #1 of America? This is a multifaceted attack on the first amendment, the very first thing that this country is supposed to be for and about.
Because people like you keep trying to raise the suicide rate of an already alarming high rate among the group.