31 ms·

The issue is the way it's defined and the language in the law. What defines "drag"? As that legislation is currently written, it can be interpreted to be someo

by jofer 3y ago

The issue is the way it's defined and the language in the law. What defines "drag"? As that legislation is currently written, it can be interpreted to be someone simply appearing in public. That aside, though, I don't see how banning things like drag queen storytime (which has happened locally here) are somehow a ban on sexualized events. How is that sexualized?

DontchaKnowit 3y ago
here is what the bill says : "'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 (1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance: (A) On public property; or (B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult." so this is not a ban on drag queen story hour: it is expressly a ban on sexual performances on public property or in front of minors. Now, if a drag queen story hour became sexualized, it could be criminal. With this language though, I seems to me that it would not criminalize a drag queen story hour where the participants were modestly dressed and did not do anything sexual in nature. This legislation does not allow the possibility of someone being arrested for just being trans in public - It is explicitly banning performances.
- jofer 3y ago
  The issue is that "purient interests" and "performance" is really not something that's well defined. Walking down the street whistling a classic rock tune like "fat bottom girls"? Arguably fits that description. Also, a "performance" can simply be appearing in public without directly performing anything. This sort of vage language in laws gives a lot of leeway for very selective enforcement.
  - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
    Okay so your issue is with the language of the law, not the intent.
    - jofer 3y ago
      I can't read minds, so it's impossible to know intent of lawmakers. It's the language of any law that should be evaluated. The language of these is problematic.
      - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
        I just don't think that is the case though. There is no real way to concretely delineate between something which "appeals to prurient interests" and something which does not. Re: the definition of obscenity in law is basically "you know it when you see it" We only have so much ability to classify things in English. Personally, I do not think it is appropriate for children to be present at sexualized drag shows. I believe that it is right to have laws that prevent this. I cannot think of any language better than what was in that bill to implement this.

by jofer 3y ago

DontchaKnowit 3y ago

here is what the bill says : "'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 (1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance: (A) On public property; or (B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult." so this is not a ban on drag queen story hour: it is expressly a ban on sexual performances on public property or in front of minors. Now, if a drag queen story hour became sexualized, it could be criminal. With this language though, I seems to me that it would not criminalize a drag queen story hour where the participants were modestly dressed and did not do anything sexual in nature. This legislation does not allow the possibility of someone being arrested for just being trans in public - It is explicitly banning performances.

jofer 3y ago
The issue is that "purient interests" and "performance" is really not something that's well defined. Walking down the street whistling a classic rock tune like "fat bottom girls"? Arguably fits that description. Also, a "performance" can simply be appearing in public without directly performing anything. This sort of vage language in laws gives a lot of leeway for very selective enforcement.
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  Okay so your issue is with the language of the law, not the intent.
  - jofer 3y ago
    I can't read minds, so it's impossible to know intent of lawmakers. It's the language of any law that should be evaluated. The language of these is problematic.
    - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
      I just don't think that is the case though. There is no real way to concretely delineate between something which "appeals to prurient interests" and something which does not. Re: the definition of obscenity in law is basically "you know it when you see it" We only have so much ability to classify things in English. Personally, I do not think it is appropriate for children to be present at sexualized drag shows. I believe that it is right to have laws that prevent this. I cannot think of any language better than what was in that bill to implement this.