The “adult live performance” law is an attempt "to suppress the speech of drag queen performers," a federal judge ruled in the Hamburger Mary's lawsuit.
If Mary's in SF was still around, I'd go there to celebrate this great news! (I think they closed in 2001 but came back in 2018 and then closed again during the pandemic and haven't come back since)
My wife, my daughter, and I used to go to the Cincinnati Hamburger Mary’s every Sunday night so we could watch SATC & QAF as a family without getting cable. Bonus that we got to watch with a fun & friendly crowd. My daughter was in her teens, at the time, and obsessed with QAF. I figured I’d rather pay for a few beers & a basket of fries every week than give Time Warner any money.
Glad the chain is still around, and glad they won this injunction.
It’s clear that Florida, like most if not all states, has a definition of pornography already on the books and presumably a body of case law defining it. One can only guess that said case law has something in it that would keep a basically family friendly drag show from being prosecuted. Far better Florida start banning “performance legislation” only aimed at virtue signaling “solutions” to non-existent problems.
The “prosthetic breast” bit means a cancer survivor in a tank top can’t sing where children are present.
There is definitely a less restrictive way of solving this-- pass a law saying that if anyone objects to drag shows that are otherwise non-pornographic under existing law, they are free to keep themselves and their children away.
Great comment, thanks! I was thinking while reading this post something similar to your example of the singing cancer survivor: what if a trans/agender/enby wearing clothes that do not, by dominant cultural standards, reflect the gender they were assigned at birth, simply sang or hummed to themselves at the bus stop? Could they be arrested for "performing" in drag? Probably, under these oppressive laws. And that, I am sure is the real purpose of these laws. They have nothing to do with children, and everything to do with policing compliance with oppressive cultural standards for gender roles and expression.
I learned afterwards that apparently the state in the case argued that this wasn't "aimed at drag queens". Appellant argued that prosthetic breasts could ONLY apply to either Drag Queens or cancer survivors. Of course if it included "enhanced" breasts it would ban all sorts of entertainers, including Carol Doda, to whom I took my then husband as a 21st birthday present. That dates me!
Of course, Doda was "over 21" because she was topless--the first one in the US. What I remember (we saw her post-enhancement) is that her boobs seemed to stay stationary while she danced and jiggled AROUND them.
The problem is not with adults being adults and living out their desires. The problem lies in pushing a sexual agenda on children. Children are to be protected from being sexulized, not led into it.
OK, we’re shutting this down. Your first response was merely an attack and thus unacceptable for this forum, so I have removed it. And your second response confirms that you’re not interested in the legal discussion (or any good-faith discussion at all) but instead on pushing a political DeSantis-style agenda arguing falsehoods as the premise for your “debate.” Just read the opinion if you actually want to know why what you’re saying is wrong. If you’re just here to troll, go find somewhere else.
I disagree with you. The language of the statute is clear. The societal context is relevant to this discussion. I hold a different opinion, and I wouldn't dare discount yours as a "political agenda", but you do mine. See ya!
And the *actual* societal context is that this is a made-up attack on “others,” not a real attempt to address any identified problem, again, as is made clear in the court’s opinion.
Hurray for 80year-old Clinton-appointed federal judges unafraid to call out Fascist Ron!
If Mary's in SF was still around, I'd go there to celebrate this great news! (I think they closed in 2001 but came back in 2018 and then closed again during the pandemic and haven't come back since)
My wife, my daughter, and I used to go to the Cincinnati Hamburger Mary’s every Sunday night so we could watch SATC & QAF as a family without getting cable. Bonus that we got to watch with a fun & friendly crowd. My daughter was in her teens, at the time, and obsessed with QAF. I figured I’d rather pay for a few beers & a basket of fries every week than give Time Warner any money.
Glad the chain is still around, and glad they won this injunction.
It’s clear that Florida, like most if not all states, has a definition of pornography already on the books and presumably a body of case law defining it. One can only guess that said case law has something in it that would keep a basically family friendly drag show from being prosecuted. Far better Florida start banning “performance legislation” only aimed at virtue signaling “solutions” to non-existent problems.
The “prosthetic breast” bit means a cancer survivor in a tank top can’t sing where children are present.
There is definitely a less restrictive way of solving this-- pass a law saying that if anyone objects to drag shows that are otherwise non-pornographic under existing law, they are free to keep themselves and their children away.
Great comment, thanks! I was thinking while reading this post something similar to your example of the singing cancer survivor: what if a trans/agender/enby wearing clothes that do not, by dominant cultural standards, reflect the gender they were assigned at birth, simply sang or hummed to themselves at the bus stop? Could they be arrested for "performing" in drag? Probably, under these oppressive laws. And that, I am sure is the real purpose of these laws. They have nothing to do with children, and everything to do with policing compliance with oppressive cultural standards for gender roles and expression.
I learned afterwards that apparently the state in the case argued that this wasn't "aimed at drag queens". Appellant argued that prosthetic breasts could ONLY apply to either Drag Queens or cancer survivors. Of course if it included "enhanced" breasts it would ban all sorts of entertainers, including Carol Doda, to whom I took my then husband as a 21st birthday present. That dates me!
Of course, Doda was "over 21" because she was topless--the first one in the US. What I remember (we saw her post-enhancement) is that her boobs seemed to stay stationary while she danced and jiggled AROUND them.
Hamburger Mary's closed their Chicago location a couple of years ago. Such great food.
Glad the courts keep striking down blatant unlawful fascist laws. Just saw this Chris- seems an important though small step forward in fixing some of the terrible problems with non-scientific forensic “evidence” https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/criminal-justice/maryland-supreme-court-ballistics-expert-witness-testimony-PEBRNZ45TJF5NGQ5SK5R5YGTKE/
The problem is not with adults being adults and living out their desires. The problem lies in pushing a sexual agenda on children. Children are to be protected from being sexulized, not led into it.
OK, we’re shutting this down. Your first response was merely an attack and thus unacceptable for this forum, so I have removed it. And your second response confirms that you’re not interested in the legal discussion (or any good-faith discussion at all) but instead on pushing a political DeSantis-style agenda arguing falsehoods as the premise for your “debate.” Just read the opinion if you actually want to know why what you’re saying is wrong. If you’re just here to troll, go find somewhere else.
I disagree with you. The language of the statute is clear. The societal context is relevant to this discussion. I hold a different opinion, and I wouldn't dare discount yours as a "political agenda", but you do mine. See ya!
And the *actual* societal context is that this is a made-up attack on “others,” not a real attempt to address any identified problem, again, as is made clear in the court’s opinion.