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).
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.