The bill, which could also be read to restrict transgender people, passed the state Senate on Tuesday and is already under consideration in the state House.
Wow, thanks for bringing this to light. That’s a real shame that the lawmakers are so scared of nothing, and are insistent on such ridiculous agendas of promoting bigotry.
So, one question, with this potential law change in Arkansas does this mean schools won’t be allowed to put on Shakespeare’a Twelth Night going forwards?
This is where that last requirement comes into play. As I wrote, under the bill, "the performance must be 'intended to appeal to the prurient interest.'" The real question would come down to whether all drag is interpreted to "appeal to the prurient interest." It should not, and I don't think it would — but that wouldn't stop the bill, if passed, from having a chilling effect. Some places likely would shy away from certain productions that they think could violate the law. (Others, of course, might put them on in opposition to — or even as a challenge to — the law.)
One would think that Arkansas has concerns to address and answer that are far greater than "drag" shows. This all falls upon the morals squads headed up by religionists who claim Jesus while actually doing the work of Satan. "Get thee behind me, Satan!" Ah, but there stands Sarah Huckabee Sanders standing if the way good in order to uplift the evil. Judge ye not? Yeah, right.
So if I'm in gender nonconforming clothes and I go to a karaoke bar to sing "Like a Virgin", that karaoke bar is automagically an adult business and subject to prosecution? Brilliant. What if I enter a singing competition and sing "I want your sex"? What if I just dance a racy jig inside Walmart in front of a few people? WalMart is an adult business?
It seems like you're trying to give examples that might be found to "appeal to the prurient interest." Assuming that they are, although that also could be debated in any instance, I'd question whether wearing gender nonconforming clothes is "meant to exaggerate the gender identity of the performer’s opposite sex." But, again, it would come down to how that is interpreted, as I say in the piece. As for the Walmart part, I'm not certain under the bill that an entire business becomes an adult-oriented business if a person — without the agreement of the business — puts on what the bill determines to be a drag performance. It technically only says that the performance is an adult-oriented business (so, in this hypothetical, you).
Again, though, all of this goes to prove how confusing — and, hence, dangerous — this bill is and would be if passed.
That's what supporters of these bills would like to see, I'm sure.
The bill would also outlaw pretty much every British pantomime -- where the "male lead" is traditionally played by a woman and the "old dames" are always played by men (in very camp, over-the-top performances). As an ex-pat Brit, living in California, it just boggles my mind that anyone would be so scared of what has been a traditional family entertainment in my home country for centuries...
Yeah, panto definitely leans into both the "exaggerated" aspect and the "prurient" aspect with plenty of smutty jokes for the adults -- that the kids in the audience are (supposedly) not going to get.
The legal fallout from all of this is going to play out for years, I suspect :(
Thanks for the shoutout Chris and spreading the word about our tracker! 💜
Wow, thanks for bringing this to light. That’s a real shame that the lawmakers are so scared of nothing, and are insistent on such ridiculous agendas of promoting bigotry.
So, one question, with this potential law change in Arkansas does this mean schools won’t be allowed to put on Shakespeare’a Twelth Night going forwards?
This is where that last requirement comes into play. As I wrote, under the bill, "the performance must be 'intended to appeal to the prurient interest.'" The real question would come down to whether all drag is interpreted to "appeal to the prurient interest." It should not, and I don't think it would — but that wouldn't stop the bill, if passed, from having a chilling effect. Some places likely would shy away from certain productions that they think could violate the law. (Others, of course, might put them on in opposition to — or even as a challenge to — the law.)
I don't get the hate for LGBTQ people. I really don't.
As an aside, it seems like every time we read about a pedophile, they are a right wing and/or religious figure. Funny how that is................
One would think that Arkansas has concerns to address and answer that are far greater than "drag" shows. This all falls upon the morals squads headed up by religionists who claim Jesus while actually doing the work of Satan. "Get thee behind me, Satan!" Ah, but there stands Sarah Huckabee Sanders standing if the way good in order to uplift the evil. Judge ye not? Yeah, right.
So if I'm in gender nonconforming clothes and I go to a karaoke bar to sing "Like a Virgin", that karaoke bar is automagically an adult business and subject to prosecution? Brilliant. What if I enter a singing competition and sing "I want your sex"? What if I just dance a racy jig inside Walmart in front of a few people? WalMart is an adult business?
It seems like you're trying to give examples that might be found to "appeal to the prurient interest." Assuming that they are, although that also could be debated in any instance, I'd question whether wearing gender nonconforming clothes is "meant to exaggerate the gender identity of the performer’s opposite sex." But, again, it would come down to how that is interpreted, as I say in the piece. As for the Walmart part, I'm not certain under the bill that an entire business becomes an adult-oriented business if a person — without the agreement of the business — puts on what the bill determines to be a drag performance. It technically only says that the performance is an adult-oriented business (so, in this hypothetical, you).
Again, though, all of this goes to prove how confusing — and, hence, dangerous — this bill is and would be if passed.
Plays and movies with any crossdressing (Victor/Victoria, Mulan, Some Like It Hot, Mrs Doubtfire, Yentl) might be illegal to show under this law.
So much for a bunch of Shakespeare’s comedies.
That's what supporters of these bills would like to see, I'm sure.
The bill would also outlaw pretty much every British pantomime -- where the "male lead" is traditionally played by a woman and the "old dames" are always played by men (in very camp, over-the-top performances). As an ex-pat Brit, living in California, it just boggles my mind that anyone would be so scared of what has been a traditional family entertainment in my home country for centuries...
See my comment above on this question.
Yeah, panto definitely leans into both the "exaggerated" aspect and the "prurient" aspect with plenty of smutty jokes for the adults -- that the kids in the audience are (supposedly) not going to get.
The legal fallout from all of this is going to play out for years, I suspect :(