In a 56-page ruling, the judge said the law is an "unconstitutional restriction on speech."

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down a Texas law that LGBTQ advocates feared would ban drag shows in the state and imprison performers.

The law, which Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed in June, expanded existing state law to prevent children from exposure to sexually explicit performances. While the legislation, Senate Bill 12, does not cite drag specifically, drag performers feared that it was passed with the intention of criminalizing the art form, which has deep ties to the LGBTQ community, and would that it repress their freedom of expression.

The bill’s statement of intent leads with and repeatedly cites drag shows as a threat to children. And on the day Abbott signed the bill into law, he shared an article about it and wrote, “Texas Governor Signs Law Banning Drag Performances in Public. That’s right.”

U.S. District Judge David Hittner, who was nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, writing that the law “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.”

“Not all people will like or condone certain performances,” Hittner wrote. “This is no different than a person’s opinion on certain comedy or genres of music, but that alone does not strip First Amendment protection.”

  • darq@kbin.social
    241·
    1 year ago

    It is an attack on LGBT+ people in general. But it also has a second purpose, in that it forms a part of the framework to criminalise transgender, non-binary, and gender-non-conforming people specifically.

    Conservatives tend to place stock in traditional gender roles, and also tend not to recognise trans and non-binary people as legitimate. This makes it simple to lump trans and enby people existing in public, and drag performances, together. After all to a conservative, both are just a person of one gender expressing themselves as another gender. This can also be done in law, by simply making the legal definition of drag loose enough that trans people dressing as they like in public could be argued into the definition.

    Then they go ahead and criminalise drag in public, by arguing that it is inherently sexual, and that in public a child might see it. This conveniently makes trans people think twice about being visible in public.

    Some states then go on to classify sex crimes that involve minors as capital offenses. Completing the framework where being trans in public could, if the courts allow, get you murdered by the state.