3 ms·
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
by 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 agoOkay so your issue is with the language of the law, not the intent.
- jofer 3y agoI 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 agoI 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.