Over the weekend, we looked at some of the preliminary details of the proposed “drag ban” in Tennessee. (If you missed that, it will probably help to go back and read that first.) At the time, I asked if Governor Bill Lee would wind up signing the bill, particularly since portions of it seemed quite dubious in constitutional terms. Well, wonder no more. The two versions of the bill had some differences that had to be ironed out, but that has now happened and it’s been delivered to the Governor, who says he plans on signing it. While it will almost certainly be challenged immediately in the courts, it will become the first “drag ban” in the country. (The Tennessean)
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said Monday he intends to sign an anti-drag show bill into law when it reaches his desk, the first time he has publicly taken a position on the legislation.
The legislation bans “adult-oriented entertainment” that is “harmful to minors” from public property and places where they might be seen by children. The law specifically mentions “go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers” and “male or female impersonators” — the latter of which includes drag performers. Under the bill, a first offense would be charged as a misdemeanor and the second a felony…
The legislation does not ban all drag performances from public or non-age restricted venues, but does prohibit them if found to be “harmful to minors.” The bill’s Senate sponsor previously said it would be up to local prosecutors to determine how to apply the law.
We now have more specifics as to the final version of the bill and how it differs from the earlier two versions. It turns out that it’s not a complete ban on “male or female impersonators.” It also includes non-drag, non-transgender adult performances described as go-go dancers or strippers. That makes it a bit less problematic. Also, people out in public dressed in drag would not be subject to arrest if they were clothed and not demonstrating in a sexual fashion.
But there are still plenty of gray areas that will cause problems. The bill speaks of “adult-oriented entertainment” that is “harmful to minors.” Who will make the call as to what does or does not present potential harm to minors? The bill’s authors don’t even attempt to clarify that point, saying it will be left up to “local prosecutors” to make that determination.
Any given prosecutor may interpret that differently, so the door is immediately opened to unequal enforcement under the law, lending weight to court challenges. In fact, the law still appears to be riddled with opportunities to have a court step in and shoot it down. The outcome, at least at the lower levels, will likely depend entirely on which judge they draw.
There was an amusing sidebar to this story over the weekend as well. It was pointed out to Governor Lee that there is a picture making the rounds from his 1977 high school yearbook where he is dressed in, well… a dress, standing next to some girls wearing suits and ties. Lee declared that any comparison between that photo and the drag shows taking place today is “ridiculous.”
But that example speaks to some of the problematic aspects of the legislation. Governor Lee described the event shown in the yearbook as a “lighthearted school tradition.” And I’m sure it was. Schools have all manner of nonsensical rituals to keep the students amused, though some may be more dubious than others. But that shouldn’t matter for the purposes of this discussion. Those students – including the future governor – were dressed in drag, no matter the reason for doing it. Is a man marching in a parade while dressed in a bridal gown any more or less “harmful to minors?” How about a woman in a hard hat with a fake “bulge” stuffed into her construction worker overalls? I’m sure you get the point.
It still seems to me that a bill tailored specifically to instances where children may be exposed (intentionally or unwittingly) to nudity or highly sexualized performances (as we’ve seen with some of the drag queen events) would have been better. Such a law would deliver more protection for minors while having a greater chance of surviving a court challenge.
