Judge Thomas Parker issued his ruling just after midnight Friday, writing that, "the Court finds that — despiteTennessee’s compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of children — the Adult Entertainment Act (“AEA”) is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL (sic) restriction on the freedom of speech."
Interesting take since public indecency is still illegal, unless of course you’re trying to sexually groom small children
Theoretically, what makes a burlesque performance a constitutionally protected form of "speech" vs. any other service that the state can regulate? There are tens of thousands of laws on the books about what businesses can and can't do, what licenses they need, and what products are services are forbidden to be sold, or how they may be sold, or how they must be labeled, or even when they can be sold. For examples states saying you can't buy or sell booze before 7am on Monday. That's constitutional. (even though commerce is regulated by Congress) What about strip clubs? Why can the state regulate nude dancers? They exclusively perform in explicitly adults-only venues, and there are still laws about what time they can take place, what they must wear, whether alcohol can be served on site, and probably many more we wouldn't even imagine. What is different about this law?
A drag show is an entertainment act. "Free Speech" in and of itself is a bit of a reductive term that actually means: "The government will not engage in viewpoint discrimination." This is why obscenity laws exist. Porn isn't a "viewpoint".
What might be interesting here from the take-away is that this could be an admission that the Drag Shows are now political speech because they advocate Queer Theory. Now, the thing is: that would absolutely be a violation of the first amendment. The state can't ban Queer Theory because it is discriminating on a viewpoint, but it would also be an admission that: yes, these drag events are no longer burlesque shows, but political rallies for Queer Ideology designed to groom children.
Theoretically, what makes a burlesque performance a constitutionally protected form of "speech" vs. any other service that the state can regulate?
Dance is speech, and the state can't regulate it as such. I'm not sure what the difference with strip clubs is.
The difference between obscenity and not obscenity (I'm not addressing the issue of whether obscenity is speech) can be artistic merit. If there is any artistic merit to your burlesque performance, the law says it's speech.
The difference between obscenity and not obscenity
Its called the Miller Test for anyone interested, that's the official criteria for the Supreme Court and should be in theory for the Federal Courts as a whole. It has three parts:
the average person finds it appealing entirely to sexual interests
the sexual interest is patently offensive
it lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
It requires all three be met to be considered obscene, which the "artistic merit" loophole allows for most things to slip through (not just for them, but basically anything that any morality police wants censored as it was heavily used in the 90s for violent comics).
Not to mention the "average person" part allows a claim that if the majority of the community finds it perfectly fine, then its fine. So a bunch of fags shitting on each other's chest in LA is perfectly allowed because its acceptable to most people there.
the "artistic merit" loophole allows for most things to slip through (not just for them, but basically anything that any morality police wants censored as it was heavily used in the 90s for violent comics).
There's more than one way to skin a cat. Just use existing laws on contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and public indecency to prosecute them.
In fact, part of the reason the judge said the law was unconstitutional was that there were existing legal remedies on the books, which becomes a tacit acknowledgment that using those existing laws to crack down on drag queens would be legal.
There is no question that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. But there is a difference between material that is ‘obscene’ in the vernacular, and material that is ‘obscene’ under the law
vs
“This win represents a triumph over hate,”
I'd like to point out those two things are very different. The judge said you might get away on a technicality with exposing minors to obscenity. The government might not have a right to regulate your borderline performance. They apparently think they're spreading love.
Interesting take since public indecency is still illegal, unless of course you’re trying to sexually groom small children
Tommy Parker deserves an iridescent present.
He deserves the rope along with all the other pedophiles infesting the judiciary.
I'd like to point out that Parker is a Trump appointee. Yet another fantastic pick by Trump.
Gotta pave the way for live buttsex during pride marches.
Theoretically, what makes a burlesque performance a constitutionally protected form of "speech" vs. any other service that the state can regulate? There are tens of thousands of laws on the books about what businesses can and can't do, what licenses they need, and what products are services are forbidden to be sold, or how they may be sold, or how they must be labeled, or even when they can be sold. For examples states saying you can't buy or sell booze before 7am on Monday. That's constitutional. (even though commerce is regulated by Congress) What about strip clubs? Why can the state regulate nude dancers? They exclusively perform in explicitly adults-only venues, and there are still laws about what time they can take place, what they must wear, whether alcohol can be served on site, and probably many more we wouldn't even imagine. What is different about this law?
Nothing. Said judge is legislating from the bench, as that particular class of tyrants is wont to do.
Good point. That's why they actually needed a Prohibition Amendment, when states still took the constitution half serious.
Wickard v Filburn remains one of the worst rulings in USA history.
Nothing. At least not really.
A drag show is an entertainment act. "Free Speech" in and of itself is a bit of a reductive term that actually means: "The government will not engage in viewpoint discrimination." This is why obscenity laws exist. Porn isn't a "viewpoint".
What might be interesting here from the take-away is that this could be an admission that the Drag Shows are now political speech because they advocate Queer Theory. Now, the thing is: that would absolutely be a violation of the first amendment. The state can't ban Queer Theory because it is discriminating on a viewpoint, but it would also be an admission that: yes, these drag events are no longer burlesque shows, but political rallies for Queer Ideology designed to groom children.
Dance is speech, and the state can't regulate it as such. I'm not sure what the difference with strip clubs is.
The difference between obscenity and not obscenity (I'm not addressing the issue of whether obscenity is speech) can be artistic merit. If there is any artistic merit to your burlesque performance, the law says it's speech.
Its called the Miller Test for anyone interested, that's the official criteria for the Supreme Court and should be in theory for the Federal Courts as a whole. It has three parts:
It requires all three be met to be considered obscene, which the "artistic merit" loophole allows for most things to slip through (not just for them, but basically anything that any morality police wants censored as it was heavily used in the 90s for violent comics).
Not to mention the "average person" part allows a claim that if the majority of the community finds it perfectly fine, then its fine. So a bunch of fags shitting on each other's chest in LA is perfectly allowed because its acceptable to most people there.
The question with all censorship is who decides?
The people who shouldn't be deciding, as always.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. Just use existing laws on contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and public indecency to prosecute them.
In fact, part of the reason the judge said the law was unconstitutional was that there were existing legal remedies on the books, which becomes a tacit acknowledgment that using those existing laws to crack down on drag queens would be legal.
Judge is a groomerclown or groomerclown adjacent. Appeal it. Or better still ignore it. This isn't an interstate federal issue.
From different article (but on this topic):
vs
I'd like to point out those two things are very different. The judge said you might get away on a technicality with exposing minors to obscenity. The government might not have a right to regulate your borderline performance. They apparently think they're spreading love.
So what? Let the federal groomer enforce his ruling.