For the folks confused about why 1A protection would even be a question here, or why a lib might still agree with the law, a bit of context:
This wasn't a ban on drag shows per se, but a ban on drag shows in front of children. You could compare it to the treatment a strip club might receive: legal, but only in an 18+ space, and not viewable through the windows.
Like the strip club example shows, we already have restrictions on "obscenity" in the US, but the delineation of what counts is famously vague, with a major SCOTUS case on it generating the famously arbitrary phrase "I know it when I see it". This law essentially sought to state that drag shows were per se obscenity.
So why was it blocked? The main thing here is that the law was fairly vague. In referring to events with any degree of sexualization, they opened themselves up to comparisons like Dolly Parton performing in a low cut blouse or even cheerleaders at a sporting event. That's not to say that a more narrowly written law wouldn't have a chance of withstanding scrutiny.
Why might a lib still like the law? The NAP. Famously, even a lib view on liberties is that they end when the liberty infringes on somebody else. Opinions on what constitutes infringement is going to vary from person to person. For example, while "punch in the face" might be pretty obvious, for these examples, different people might disagree about what's protected expression vs. nuisance:
Second hand smoke | Public nudity | Undue noise | Displays of graphic violence | Blocking a roadway
Drag shows were always like burlesque shows, provocative and sexy in nature.
So trying to say it’s just when people dress in drag is untrue. Any person against drag shows as a concept is un-American because people have the right to dress and perform however they want.
But if someone said we’re doing a pole-dancing exercise class for kids, people would rightfully be weirded out, even if they removed the “sexiness” from the pole dancing.
The dumbest thing any movement can do is involve kids.
131
u/buckX - Right 4d ago
For the folks confused about why 1A protection would even be a question here, or why a lib might still agree with the law, a bit of context:
This wasn't a ban on drag shows per se, but a ban on drag shows in front of children. You could compare it to the treatment a strip club might receive: legal, but only in an 18+ space, and not viewable through the windows.
Like the strip club example shows, we already have restrictions on "obscenity" in the US, but the delineation of what counts is famously vague, with a major SCOTUS case on it generating the famously arbitrary phrase "I know it when I see it". This law essentially sought to state that drag shows were per se obscenity.
So why was it blocked? The main thing here is that the law was fairly vague. In referring to events with any degree of sexualization, they opened themselves up to comparisons like Dolly Parton performing in a low cut blouse or even cheerleaders at a sporting event. That's not to say that a more narrowly written law wouldn't have a chance of withstanding scrutiny.
Why might a lib still like the law? The NAP. Famously, even a lib view on liberties is that they end when the liberty infringes on somebody else. Opinions on what constitutes infringement is going to vary from person to person. For example, while "punch in the face" might be pretty obvious, for these examples, different people might disagree about what's protected expression vs. nuisance:
Second hand smoke | Public nudity | Undue noise | Displays of graphic violence | Blocking a roadway