Submitted by fatboyslick t3_11elnam in todayilearned
samfreez t1_jaeqlw2 wrote
It's now illegal again in some states, if you're "dancing" (wide open for interpretation as to what counts as dancing) in front of children. (Edit: To cover all bases, technically they may not be illegal yet but there are proposals out there, which I've linked further down, some of which have passed the first steps to becoming law)
Our laws are properly fucked in this country.
TrustedChimp495 t1_jaeslfr wrote
Got a source for this?
samfreez t1_jaetavt wrote
Arkansas Senate Bill 43 (Warning: PDF) --- Edit: Correction, Arkansas, not Alabama as I initially listed
Edit: Also some proposed bills:
Edit 2: There's also the Tennessee Bill SB0003 (Warning, also a PDF)
chuuckaduuckpro t1_jaexz86 wrote
Iowa is slipping so hard lately. So minors can’t go to drag shows BUT they can go work in slaughter houses, despicable I’m so ashamed, god I hope neither of those bills pass
samfreez t1_jaeycam wrote
Yeah... Repugnicans are trying REALLY hard to ram their agendas down everyone's throats these days. It's truly despicable and evil.
chuuckaduuckpro t1_jaeyvrx wrote
Iowa governor is stripping social services of money, turning away federal aid and then celebrating a surplus budget. It’s swung so far right that Iowa has lost the honor of being the first state in the nation to vote in the democratic primary. To paraphrase Field of Dreams “Is this Hell? No it’s Iowa”
samfreez t1_jaez593 wrote
He'll also be the first one to beg for money behind the scenes the next time we see massive flooding in the state again, I'm sure.
I have a lot of friends in and from Iowa, and every single one of them is ashamed of what's happening in their state right now, but until Sinclair Media properly fucks off, there won't be much anyone can do to de-claw the right-wing misinformation that keeps everyone scared of their own toenails.
killerklixx t1_jaev05c wrote
Am I missing something? You said "dancing" is open to interpretation, but this Arkansas bill specifically defines adult-oriented performances (like stripping/burlesque) and bans it from public spaces, in front of kids or being funded with public money. I don't see the issue?
Narcowski t1_jaewr49 wrote
It's a different bill, but TN just changed its definition of burlesque to include any "male or female impersonator"; all it would now take to arrest and charge a cis Tennessean woman in pants with a felony over her clothing is a claim on behalf of a cop that her presentation appealed to a puritent interest.
The first and primary targets are trans people, of course.
Bardfinn t1_jaezedk wrote
Yep. That’s the tactic they’re all using — passing a law that bans a narrowly defined set of behaviours, knowing they have the power to redefine a single word used in the bill-now-law to have sweeping social policing powers targeting anyone and anything that doesn’t conform to their desires.
In Tennessee, if this bill is signed into law (and the Republican governor has said he intends to sign it into law), all it would take is for a married lesbian couple (where one of them is butch - wearing pants or having short hair) to kiss in public — and puritanical morality police could arrest and charge them.
With a felony.
Even if no kids see them.
Because the law specifies that the “performance” happen where children could see them.
It outlaws Pride parades. It outlaws men with long hair. It outlaws gay men wearing makeup. It outlaws everything except what they decide it doesn’t outlaw.
samfreez t1_jaey40k wrote
Thank you for the reminder! That's the particularly damning one I'd been thinking of but couldn't remember.
AdmiralAkbar1 t1_jaetb7p wrote
samfreez t1_jaetu41 wrote
Check my reply and you'll see I linked directly to the now-passed bill in Arkansas as well as the proposals in Iowa and Arizona. I believe there's at least 1-2 more in the works as well, but 3 is sufficient for now.
AdmiralAkbar1 t1_jaevfnq wrote
The only bill that restricts bringing minors to all forms of drag shows is Iowa. The Arkansas and Arizona bills specify that it must involve "prurient interest" (which actually has a specific legal definition as part of the Miller test), and the Arkansas bill specifically says it only applies to events with adult nudity and genital exposure.
It should also be noted that none of these bills have passed.
Moody_GenX t1_jaeythk wrote
> It should also be noted that none of these bills have passed.
Yeah that is what proposed bills means.
AdmiralAkbar1 t1_jaf3z0y wrote
It's certainly something that should be highlighted since the person who posted them claimed that it's currently illegal in several states.
hastur777 t1_jaf2amh wrote
Don’t bother with legal nuance here. It falls on deaf ears.
Virtue_Avenue t1_jaeyf3o wrote
Wearing pants isn’t the same thing as You wanting to twerk in front of little kids.
samfreez t1_jaeync1 wrote
Dancing covers a whole lot more than just twerking you know.
I'd also challenge you to find any drag queen who reads to kids while, after, or before twerking.
Virtue_Avenue t1_jaf05bs wrote
Not a lot of reading going on, https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1630597593255247872?s=46&t=HL2ZC4vrfVGAQAbCbzOPcQ
samfreez t1_jaf0lnk wrote
No twerking going on either.
Edit: They're talking about Michael Phelps winning an Olympic gold medal "for twerking" and you think this is real? lmao
Virtue_Avenue t1_jaf15f9 wrote
Men who dress up as women to dance for kids is the same as women wearing pants, which no one is trying to make illegal. Those are both normal things, exactly the same thing in fact
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments