Tennessee Restrictions On Drag Shows Ruled Unconstitutional

[Voluntarist]

They're going to have to get a lot more specific if they want these laws to stand. The terms they use are much too broad and generic - they'll need to get down to specifying actual practices/acts that pose a threat to the public well-being. The simple act of a man impersonating a woman while on stage isn't enough to circumvent the first amendment.

Federal judge rules Tennessee restrictions on drag shows unconstitutional

A federal judge ruled on Friday that a Tennessee law banning drag shows in public or in places where children could view them is unconstitutional, finding that it violates freedom of speech protections.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker said in his ruling that the law, which Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed in March, is both “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad.”

The law says an “adult cabaret performance” is unlawful if it happens on public property or in a location where the performance “could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.” It defines such a performance as one that is harmful to minors and includes topless dancers, “exotic” dancers, strippers and male or female impersonators.

Parker had issued a preliminary injunction at the end of March to block the law from taking effect. He agreed with Friends of George’s, a Memphis-based theater group that produces drag performances, comedy sketches and plays, that the state’s Adult Entertainment Act (AEA) could apply “just about anywhere.”

Friends of George’s argued that the law would violate its free speech and put its members at risk of felony charges over the shows that it has held for years. The group argued that the law is overly broad because it applies to minors of all ages and anywhere that a minor could be.

Parker agreed with the argument, ruling that the AEA was passed “for the impermissible purpose of chilling constitutionally-protected speech.”

He ruled that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, but the law is not the least restrictive nor most narrowly tailored way that it could accomplish this without violating free speech.

 

[jmdrake]

The judge that made this ruled was appointed by Trump [MENTION=10908]dannno[/MENTION] and [MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION].

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Would the law ban this show?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNMIju-xn0

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The judge that made this ruled was appointed by Trump [MENTION=10908]dannno[/MENTION] and [MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION].

Aren’t there a lot of laws that are potentially unconstitutional, yet the courts refuse to do anything until the law has been used against someone, and that person now has standing to go to court?

 

[jmdrake]

Would the law ban this show?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNMIju-xn0

The actual text of the law:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding the following language as a new subdivision:

"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;

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding the following language as a new subsection: (c)
(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.
(2) Notwithstanding § 7-51-1406, this subsection (c) expressly:
(A) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to the effective date of this act that is in conflict with this subsection (c); and - 2 - 000187

(B) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or licenses that are in conflict with this subsection (c).

(3) A first offense for a violation of subdivision (c)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent such offense is a Class E felony.

SECTION 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2023, the public welfare requiring it, and applies to prohibited conduct occurring on or after that date.
​

I put the important part of this law in bold. APPEALS TO A PRURIENT INTEREST. What does the word "prurient" mean?


prurient
adjective
pru·​ri·​ent ˈpru̇r-ē-ənt
Synonyms of prurient
: marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire
especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire


In other words, in order to be covered by the law, the performance needed to be overtly sexual. Here is an example of something covered by the law.

Starting at 1:10 here:



Do you see the difference between the video that triggered Desantis and later the Tennessee legislature and the "fruity pie" video you posted? Because I do. A transwoman strutting around in a bikini bottom and pasties with a 4 year old girl in tow is prurient. Mrs. Doubtfire and, from the clip you posted, "fruity pie" are not. Basically just because you call a strip show a "trans" show doesn't somehow make it protected speech. If heterosexual dads were taking their 12 year old heterosexual sons to a heterosexual titty bar for a birthday lap dance, feminists nationwide would be decrying that as promoting "rape culture." But if the performer still has or used to have a penis then it's okay and trying to stop it is transphobic? What the actual hell?

Aren’t there a lot of laws that are potentially unconstitutional, yet the courts refuse to do anything until the law has been used against someone, and that person now has standing to go to court?

I'm not sure I understand your point. I didn't argue that the Plaintiff's in this case lacked standing. Although it could be argued that the lacked standing since the way they described their performances did not fall under the "prurient interest" prong of the statute. I don't know how much clearer the law could be.

Here is the funny thing. This same year a Clinton appointed judge struck down lawsuits that the Biden administration was supporting against private Christian colleges and universities for LGBTQ discrimination.

 

[jmdrake]

What the Tennessee law was actually trying to stop.

Little girl allowed to rub on drag queen's crotch in Chattanooga Tennesse.



Minnesota drag queen at "story hour" exposing crotch to children. [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] posted a thread about this back in 2019.



Drag queens performing in front of kids in Dallas Texas in front of a sign that says "It won't lick itself."



All of these videos are drag performances that appeal to a "prurient interest." And if the performers had been dressed as men and encouraging children to rub their crotch or talking about "it's not going to lick itself" or exposing their crotch to children, the problem would have been obvious. But dress this up in a rainbow flag and all of a sudden it's protected under the first amendment?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...
I'm not sure I understand your point. I didn't argue that the Plaintiff's in this case lacked standing. Although it could be argued that the lacked standing since the way they described their performances did not fall under the "prurient interest" prong of the statute. I don't know how much clearer the law could be.
...

It was a generic legal question. For example, it seems like when a state passes a gun restriction, we hear that it can’t be taken to court because no one has been effected by it (yet). Just seems like there a lot of constitutional violations where we are told that no one can take it to court.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The actual text of the law:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding the following language as a new subdivision:

"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;

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding the following language as a new subsection: (c)
(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.
(2) Notwithstanding § 7-51-1406, this subsection (c) expressly:
(A) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to the effective date of this act that is in conflict with this subsection (c); and - 2 - 000187

(B) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or licenses that are in conflict with this subsection (c).

(3) A first offense for a violation of subdivision (c)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent such offense is a Class E felony.

SECTION 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2023, the public welfare requiring it, and applies to prohibited conduct occurring on or after that date.
​

I put the important part of this law in bold. APPEALS TO A PRURIENT INTEREST. What does the word "prurient" mean?


prurient
adjective
pru·​ri·​ent ˈpru̇r-ē-ənt
Synonyms of prurient
: marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire
especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire


In other words, in order to be covered by the law, the performance needed to be overtly sexual. Here is an example of something covered by the law.

Starting at 1:10 here:



Do you see the difference between the video that triggered Desantis and later the Tennessee legislature and the "fruity pie" video you posted? Because I do. A transwoman strutting around in a bikini bottom and pasties with a 4 year old girl in tow is prurient. Mrs. Doubtfire and, from the clip you posted, "fruity pie" are not. Basically just because you call a strip show a "trans" show doesn't somehow make it protected speech. If heterosexual dads were taking their 12 year old heterosexual sons to a heterosexual titty bar for a birthday lap dance, feminists nationwide would be decrying that as promoting "rape culture." But if the performer still has or used to have a penis then it's okay and trying to stop it is transphobic? What the actual hell?
...

So the judge was wrong? It doesn’t sound like the actual law is too broad.

 

[Voluntarist]

"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

What's the meaning of the "regardless" portion of the bolded clause? It sounds like a performance is prurient whether or not the performer intended it to be prurient. That's something that needs to be more specific. Is it enough for a single audience member (with a specific fetish) to have their prurient interests raised, or does some specific percentage of the audience have to be aroused? And isn't prurient interest in the eye of the beholder (have any of these performance acts been peter-metered to determined what an average person would deem prurient)?

In the bolded clause, is "similar entertainer" vague enough to include waitresses at Hooters? Because I (and many others) have never been to the place for its less than scrumptious food, but rather for its bodacious waitresses in their tiny outfits (which I think qualifies as prurient interest, whether or not the waitress/performer intended to inspire such interest).

When you state:

A transwoman strutting around in a bikini bottom and pasties with a 4 year old girl in tow is prurient.

Is it prurient because it is "marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire in sex" in the 4-year old child, or in someone else? I can't imagine a four year old child having prurient interest. Maybe it's that someone has determined that a four year old child "should" have prurient interests

Besides all that, putting "prurient interest" and "Drag Queen" in the same sentence seems oxymoronic. For instance, I can't imagine anyone on this forum having immoderate or unwholesome sexual interests or desires from watching a Drag performance (well, there are some forum members I wouldn't put it past, but I doubt they'd admit to it).

I think the advertised intention of the legislation was to keep children from being exposed to overt sexual acts. I don't think this legislation does that; it seems more directed at making drag performers reluctant to perform. While I'm not a fan of Drag (I think of it as belittling women just as much as black face belittles black people), I do think the first amendment permits it. If you want to protect children, I think you have to spell out the prohibited sexual acts/displays themselves, as specifically as possible. There have been a number of such acts described in this thread; and I would suspect that there are already laws on the books to criminalize, for instance, an adult from enticing a child to touch their crotch. The legislation needs to be specific enough that it's not up to the judge to decide whether a specific instance raises "prurient interest" or not (otherwise you'll end up with one judge ruling one way while another judge rules differently).

 

[jmdrake]

It was a generic legal question. For example, it seems like when a state passes a gun restriction, we hear that it can’t be taken to court because no one has been effected by it (yet). Just seems like there a lot of constitutional violations where we are told that no one can take it to court.

Okay. I see your point. I need to look up the briefings in this case because I don't know how the plaintiffs had standing. One can argue for standing based on a "chilling effect" argument meaning "I can't do what I want to do for fear that I'll be arrested for doing it." I believe there's been a recent challenge by a gun store over Biden's pistol brace ban under that theory. In this case the plaintiff's were a gay playhouse that included a female Elvis impersonator. I don't see that as prurient. In fact at the conservative Christian academy I went to in the 1980s one of the girls did that for a talent show.

So the judge was wrong? It doesn’t sound like the actual law is too broad.

That's my feeling on this. This law has been mischaracterized in the media as a ban on drag shows. Drag shows were no more banned then are heterosexual strip shows. You can get a lap dance in Nashville, you just can't take your kids to watch.

 

[jmdrake]

What's the meaning of the "regardless" portion of the bolded clause? It sounds like a performance is prurient whether or not the performer intended it to be prurient. That's something that needs to be more specific. Is it enough for a single audience member (with a specific fetish) to have their prurient interests raised, or does some specific percentage of the audience have to be aroused? And isn't prurient interest in the eye of the beholder (have any of these performance acts been peter-metered to determined what an average person would deem prurient)?

The regardless part isn't attached to the term "prurient". It's attached to the word "consideration". In law "consideration" means "for payment." So a sexually arousing performance (prurient) is off limits for minors regardless if its being done for payment or not.

In the bolded clause, is "similar entertainer" vague enough to include waitresses at Hooters? Because I (and many others) have never been to the place for its less than scrumptious food, but rather for its bodacious waitresses in their tiny outfits (which I think qualifies as prurient interest, whether or not the waitress/performer intended to inspire such interest).

Last time I was at Hooters the waitresses really weren't that hot but the wings were pretty good. And Hooters waitresses dress pretty tame by today's standards. But going by your Hooters example, if the waitress that you found hot came out topless with nothing but pasties on would you find that more or less arousing?

When you state:
Is it prurient because it is "marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire in sex" in the 4-year old child, or in someone else? I can't imagine a four year old child having prurient interest. Maybe it's that someone has determined that a four year old child "should" have prurient interests

You know that there was recently a story on this forum about a 6 year old that raped another child right? Now 6 is 2 years past 4, but I'm willing to bet that a child who's moved on to rape 6 was probably exposed to sexually explicit material at 4 or 5. Is your argument that 4 year olds should be able to go into adult venues because they are too young? Not a good argument.

Besides all that, putting "prurient interest" and "Drag Queen" in the same sentence seems oxymoronic. For instance, I can't imagine anyone on this forum having immoderate or unwholesome sexual interests or desires from watching a Drag performance (well, there are some forum members I wouldn't put it past, but I doubt they'd admit to it).

Did you watch the video I posted with the transwoman (really not a drag queen) with the pasties on? I bet if she worked at Hooters you wouldn't have known she used to be a he. Regardless, it's silly to argue that just because you don't find something arousing means that it's okay for young children to be exposed to it. If that's the case then I guess children should be able to go to sex shows seeing two men hump each other for real.

I think the advertised intention of the legislation was to keep children from being exposed to overt sexual acts. I don't think this legislation does that; it seems more directed at making drag performers reluctant to perform.

And you are basing your assumption on what exactly? You seem fine with the four year old and the topless transwoman. That's what sane people are trying to prevent.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Mark my words, if this shit is not stamped out, hard and now, in another ten years or so, it will be a felony hate crime to prevent or protect your minor child from sodomy at the hands of a grown man.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Okay. I see your point. I need to look up the briefings in this case because I don't know how the plaintiffs had standing. One can argue for standing based on a "chilling effect" argument meaning "I can't do what I want to do for fear that I'll be arrested for doing it." ...

I am not a legal expert, and wish I could remember specifics, but IIRC, there was massive data collection by the government, and the excuse was always that no one could identify an individual whose rights were violated. Nobody had standing to take it to court. 4th Amendment be damned.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I have not been to the beach in a long time. I remember back in the 80's or 90's String Bikini's were a big thing. Would a beach with beautiful women wearing string bikini's be considered "prurient interest"? What about a nude beach? Is it the clothing, lack of clothing, or the behavior that is in question?

Would wearing a string bikini away from a lake, swimming pool, ocean beach be "prurient interest?" If skimpy clothing is allowed at the beach/lake/swimming pool, would it not be okay for same person to wear same clothing around town?

Arnold Schwarzenegger wore nothing but a speedo when posing in early years. Was that "prurient interest"? What about the old days of swimsuit issues of Sports Illustrated when they were not woke? Or going into Joe's garage where near naked beauties were on the calendar behind the owners desk?

Is it okay for the strutting around in skimpy clothing with child in tow person committing an illegal act if they do it in their own home with their own child?

I have no answers to the previous questions. I think if something is to be determined to be illegal there needs to be clear understanding of exactly is unlawful. Is it the clothing or lack thereof? Is it the attitude? Is it the biological gender of the person wearing the clothing? Is it wrong for a parent in their own home to walk naked across the room with the door open?

The sad thing here is that the law is going to take away the parents right to determine what their child should or should not be exposed to. It seems like the logical thing would be for parents to be able to decide if they want their child exposed to whatever that is. Riding a motorcycle at 5 years of age, climbing trees, playing outside alone, watching R rated movies, Religion, Nudity, profanity......It seems like the parent should be the one deciding to allow or limit what the child is exposed to. I fear that soon if a parent does not allow their child to be exposed to xyz, the parent will be charged with a crime.

Seems like a complicated issue because Society is not allowing parents to parent. Schools cannot teach the basics of reading or math. It is not their place to be indoctrinating subjective beliefs.

<font color="#333333">

 

[jmdrake]

I am not a legal expert, and wish I could remember specifics, but IIRC, there was massive data collection by the government, and the excuse was always that no one could identify an individual whose rights were violated. Nobody had standing to take it to court. 4th Amendment be damned.

Oh I know cases like that have happened and have left me scratching my head. Yeah I can't think of a specific one. I found this law review article that covers this issue.

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=nlj

Some of the relevant parts to what you're talking about:

Many scholars have critiqued the Court’s Fourth Amendment standing doctrine for a variety of reasons,8 and I join the chorus with my view that the Court has developed an unduly narrow vision of standing (and thus, the Fourth Amendment) that fails to take into account the collective, regulatory objective of the Amendment and of its primary remedy—exclusion. However, the main focus of this Article is the Court’s collapse of the standing inquiry into the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim, a doctrinal move that, while noted by scholars, has not generally been the primary focus of analysis.9 I hope to demonstrate that with this move, the Court not only effectively restricted the scope of the Fourth Amendment, but helped ensure that its narrow, individualistic view would endure.

To form a backdrop against which this argument can be developed, it is necessary to begin with a few thoughts on judicial activism in general and with respect to criminal procedure rules in particular. In an excellent article, Professor Stephen F. Smith provides a highly useful, ideologically neutral definition of judicial activism, in both its substantive and procedural dimensions.10 According to Professor Smith, substantive activism is implicated when a court reaches a decision at odds with the text or structure of the constitutional or statutory provision being adjudicated, when a court overrules precedent without proper justification under relevant stare decisis rules, or when a court distinguishes or limits precedent on tenuous grounds.11 Procedural activism, on the other hand, may be suspected when a court chooses to reach the merits of an issue despite justiciability rules that would (or should) otherwise restrain the court from so doing, or when a court decides more than is necessary to dispose
of the case before it.12

There is little doubt that the Court’s decisions in Rakas, Salvucci, and Rawlings are substantively activist decisions. After all, in the course of these three opinions, the Court in effect rewrote the Fourth Amendment by erasing “effects” from the text itself, obliterated several existing standing doctrines, and arguably misread or misapplied prior cases.13 Whether these decisions are also procedurally activist is somewhat less clear. Standing is one aspect of justiciability that inhabits two worlds at once: the question of who may raise a claim under a given constitutional or statutory provision is informed by the substance of the relevant provision.14 I propose that these decisions are procedurally as well as substantively activist—the Court decided more, and less, than was necessary.​

One great thing about participating in this forum. Even though it's not a legal discussion forum per se, there are often good discussions that expand my legal knowledge. I ought to earn CLE credits for this.

Something that's interesting to note. The same SCOTUS that seems will to expand the First Amendment past its original intent (I doubt the founders intended to protect adult entertainment of any kind but rather to protect political speech), there seems to be a willingness to contract the Fourth Amendment (diminishing the idea that you can't inspect a persons "effects" without a warrant). Even the "political speech" aspect for the First Amendment has been diminished. Democratic and Republic presidents have threatened churches' 501(c)(3) status over political speech. Biden is currently prosecuting black socialists who spoke out against the war in Ukraine for supposedly being "Russian agents" even though technically we're not even at war with Ukraine. And Fauci under Trump and later Biden pressured social media companies to censor. So people have the "freedom" to undermine the fabric of the nation but not the freedom to challenge the government. It reminds me of how China took the porn filters off the "Great Firewall Of China" because they were tired of porn addicts finding ways around their filters and sharing that with actual activists.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/once-...sible-in-china-without-government-explanation

I'm not sure if the Chicoms ultimately put the porn filters back, of if the hackers finding their way around "The Great Firewall Of China" actually cared more about freedom than about porn, but the war over China's censorship technology has continued through the present day.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/thr...-sieging-the-great-firewall-of-china.1082472/

 

[jmdrake]

I have not been to the beach in a long time. I remember back in the 80's or 90's String Bikini's were a big thing. Would a beach with beautiful women wearing string bikini's be considered "prurient interest"? What about a nude beach? Is it the clothing, lack of clothing, or the behavior that is in question?

Would wearing a string bikini away from a lake, swimming pool, ocean beach be "prurient interest?" If skimpy clothing is allowed at the beach/lake/swimming pool, would it not be okay for same person to wear same clothing around town?

Arnold Schwarzenegger wore nothing but a speedo when posing in early years. Was that "prurient interest"? What about the old days of swimsuit issues of Sports Illustrated when they were not woke? Or going into Joe's garage where near naked beauties were on the calendar behind the owners desk?

Is it okay for the strutting around in skimpy clothing with child in tow person committing an illegal act if they do it in their own home with their own child?

I have no answers to the previous questions. I think if something is to be determined to be illegal there needs to be clear understanding of exactly is unlawful. Is it the clothing or lack thereof? Is it the attitude? Is it the biological gender of the person wearing the clothing? Is it wrong for a parent in their own home to walk naked across the room with the door open?

The sad thing here is that the law is going to take away the parents right to determine what their child should or should not be exposed to. It seems like the logical thing would be for parents to be able to decide if they want their child exposed to whatever that is. Riding a motorcycle at 5 years of age, climbing trees, playing outside alone, watching R rated movies, Religion, Nudity, profanity......It seems like the parent should be the one deciding to allow or limit what the child is exposed to. I fear that soon if a parent does not allow their child to be exposed to xyz, the parent will be charged with a crime.

Seems like a complicated issue because Society is not allowing parents to parent. Schools cannot teach the basics of reading or math. It is not their place to be indoctrinating subjective beliefs.

<font color="#333333">

The videos I posted are pretty clear. It's illegal in most states to take your 12 year old to the "nudie bar" as the infamous Al Bundy called it. Just because the girls at the nudie bar used to have, or still have, a penis shouldn't magically make that legal. This ain't complicated.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The videos I posted are pretty clear. It's illegal in most states to take your 12 year old to the "nudie bar" as the infamous Al Bundy called it. Just because the girls at the nudie bar used to have, or still have, a penis shouldn't magically make that legal. This ain't complicated.

I would not dispute that. There was already a legal age for entering a nudie bar.

What about the beach? What about a straight biological woman wearing string bikini at beach or walking thru town? What about Miss USA doing swimsuit competition on live TV. Didn't they recently do away with the swimsuit? Why? What about ABC televising Arnold? I am simply asking you to define how far your particular term applies. Is it appropriate for a straight biological male to be walking around town in a speedo? Okay what would be deemed appropriate? Is it okay for a straight buff biological male to be going for a run wearing only shorts and no shirt? Is it okay for women to walk around topless? As the OP pointed out, things need to be more clearly defined.

 

[jmdrake]

I would not dispute that. There was already a legal age for entering a nudie bar.

So why was nobody arrested? Did you know that TikTok will take down photos of "cisgender" women's breasts but not transwomen's breasts? It's a grey area. The Tennessee law cleared it up.

What about the beach? What about a straight biological woman wearing string bikini at beach or walking thru town? What about Miss USA doing swimsuit competition on live TV. Didn't they recently do away with the swimsuit? Why? What about ABC televising Arnold? I am simply asking you to define how far your particular term applies. Is it appropriate for a straight biological male to be walking around town in a speedo? Okay what would be deemed appropriate? Is it okay for a straight buff biological male to be going for a run wearing only shorts and no shirt? Is it okay for women to walk around topless? As the OP pointed out, things need to be more clearly defined.

The law is pretty straightforward. Just because you're in drag or trans doesn't mean you get to get around laws that already ban the same behavior if the performers are cisgender. Again, this wasn't about hypotheticals but about what was already happening. But how would you write the law? I guarantee you it would fall under the same attack because this is not at all about protecting the rights of trans beach goers.

 

[AngryCanadian]

Another one of Trump's Picks.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

So why was nobody arrested? Did you know that TikTok will take down photos of "cisgender" women's breasts but not transwomen's breasts? It's a grey area. The Tennessee law cleared it up.



The law is pretty straightforward. Just because you're in drag or trans doesn't mean you get to get around laws that already ban the same behavior if the performers are cisgender. Again, this wasn't about hypotheticals but about what was already happening. But how would you write the law? I guarantee you it would fall under the same attack because this is not at all about protecting the rights of trans beach goers.

You are an attorney.
I would imagine if a decent lawyer were defending a person they would bring up the non-hypotheticals of beach attire and attire broadcasted for years on National Television.
If there was ever a broadcast television show portraying a scene with a person with clothing on doing a pole dance that could easily be argued that it is for all audiences.