Federal judge temporarily blocks Tennessee's anti-drag law

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PorkChop96

It's not about me. It's about equal protection under the law.

Pathetic attempt at justifying sex shows for kids. Get help

a reply to: Cymatic

Yeah, those pathetic 1st and 14th Amendments, and that pesky Constitution!!!

a reply to: TheRedneck

"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;

Let's just look at it like this:

"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration"

We know what a topless go-go dancer is, we know what a stripper is and why such a shows appeal to prurient interests. We don't know what makes a male or female impersonator prurient or to whom.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

All that says is someone can't use the loophole of "I didn't do it for money." Most of these cross-dressing idiots in the schools aren't doing it for the money; they are doing it for a personal agenda. Whether a patron pays for something or not does not change what that is doing to children who can see it.

As for what "prurient" means, it is, as always in law, what a reasonable person would see as prurient. Simple. You're just trying to make it complicated. The law also states the performer must intend to appeal to a prurient interest... that is a requirement that must be decided by a jury of one's peers.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Again, for the umpteenth time, this law does not ban cross-dressing! Period! It makes it illegal to do it in front of minors.

You can try to claim that the Constitution allows a person to do whatever they want to indoctrinate innocent children all day long; it does not make it true. It only serves to show your ignorance of law and the Constitution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Again, for the umpteenth time, this law does not ban cross-dressing! Period! It makes it illegal to do it in front of minors.

"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret...

It makes it illegal to do it anywhere that isn't an "Adult Cabaret", specifically on public property OR where a minor could view it.

(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult

You can try to claim that the Constitution allows a person to do whatever they want to indoctrinate innocent children all day long;

It's not me sweety. It's the judge who issued the TRO that said the bill, on its face, is unconstitutional.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret...

An "adult cabaret" is anywhere that a prurient performance is happening. Your personal definition does not override the legal definition.

I can put on a prurient show in my house for friends; during that show, my house is an "adult cabaret." No children are allowed. According to the new law, it is classified as such whether I charge for admission or not.

You re correct that an "adult cabaret' performance in public is illegal... always has been. If you ever want to shake your bare booty on the courthouse square in Tennessee (or Alabama for that matter), be prepared to spend the night in jail and pay a hefty fine. The judge's decision has no bearing on that; it only affects the part about cross-dressing and not-for-compensation, which is there because some people have been using the schools and public venues to talk to pre-pubescent children about how to be transsexual.

It's not me sweety. It's the judge who issued the TRO that said the bill, on its face, is unconstitutional.

You're the one here arguing in favor of the judge's decision, "sweety."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

An "adult cabaret" is anywhere that a prurient performance is happening.

So, anywhere that's not already an adult cabaret. That's what I said.

You re correct that an "adult cabaret' performance in public is illegal...

Again, Tennessee's obscenity law is clear on what kind of entertainment/behavior is regarded as obscene/prurient. This law is unclear as to why a person imitating a man or a woman is regarded as obscene, whether or not they're performing for consideration.

You're the one here arguing in favor of the judge's decision.

Good catch, Sherlock!
The judge temporarily blocked the law's enforcement because the law is too broad, making it unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Cymatic

Yeah, those pathetic 1st and 14th Amendments, and that pesky Constitution!!!

Does the 1st amendment also cover child pornography? Seriously, where do you draw the line?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The judge temporarily blocked the law's enforcement because the law is too broad, making it unconstitutional.

Imagine.....this account lecturing anyone on the Constitution.

Do you still believe "well regulated" means government regulation and that only a "militia" can keep and bear arms........?

originally posted by: TheRedneck

An "adult cabaret" is anywhere that a prurient performance is happening. Your personal definition does not override the legal definition.

I can put on a prurient show in my house for friends; during that show, my house is an "adult cabaret." No children are allowed. According to the new law, it is classified as such whether I charge for admission or not.

You re correct that an "adult cabaret' performance in public is illegal... always has been. If you ever want to shake your bare booty on the courthouse square in Tennessee (or Alabama for that matter), be prepared to spend the night in jail and pay a hefty fine. The judge's decision has no bearing on that; it only affects the part about cross-dressing and not-for-compensation, which is there because some people have been using the schools and public venues to talk to pre-pubescent children about how to be transsexual.

....

TheRedneck

That right there!

It's the power of proper rhetoric.

Understand that while to arguments are centered around a specific point, it renders itself in directly tangible components of a single thought.

Had the legislation been worded thusly (reasonably accommodated into the context) it might have passed the litmus test of not enabling abuse of the law in opposition to the free expression of ideas... which herein are referred as the titular "free speech" objection.

What is the idea being propagated when that particular activity is the purpose of the display? Story hour was one thing... dancing and parading around in exposition is entirely different. The departure from "the reason for the performance" is what empowered this opposition.

The only problem is that we entrust politicians (and their 'consultants') to word the bill... and they screwed it up. Their populist aim was not to protect minors from exposure to imposed socially inappropriate situations - but instead to empower the state to punish people deemed "offensive." The judge was right to halt this bill from going further... it needs to be written by thoughtful civic leaders who respect the body of the constitution... and aren't concerned with pleasing some political masters and their media mouthpieces.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The judge temporarily blocked the law's enforcement because the law is too broad, making it unconstitutional.

Imagine.....this account lecturing anyone on the Constitution.

Do you still believe "well regulated" means government regulation and that only a "militia" can keep and bear arms........?

I never said any such thing. I said "well-regulated" phrase in the 2nd Amendment is what give states the power to require back-ground checks on gun sales.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The judge temporarily blocked the law's enforcement because the law is too broad, making it unconstitutional.

Imagine.....this account lecturing anyone on the Constitution.

Do you still believe "well regulated" means government regulation and that only a "militia" can keep and bear arms........?

I never said any such thing. I said "well-regulated" phrase in the 2nd Amendment is what give states the power to require back-ground checks on gun sales.

So then tell me, how does well regulated permit thr government to infringe......?

Exactly the reason why no one reading should take your views on the Constitution seriously.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The judge temporarily blocked the law's enforcement because the law is too broad, making it unconstitutional.

Imagine.....this account lecturing anyone on the Constitution.

Do you still believe "well regulated" means government regulation and that only a "militia" can keep and bear arms........?

I never said any such thing. I said "well-regulated" phrase in the 2nd Amendment is what give states the power to require back-ground checks on gun sales.

So then tell me, how does well regulated permit thr government to infringe......?

Exactly the reason why no one reading should take your views on the Constitution seriously.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The judge's decision has no bearing on that; it only affects the part about cross-dressing and not-for-compensation

The word is "consideration". Not "compensation". Big difference.

a reply to: JinMI

So then tell me, how does well regulated permit thr government to infringe......?

Start a 2nd Amendment thread. I defended myself against your misrepresentation. I won't go further off topic in this thread.

Exactly the reason why no one reading should take your views on the Constitution seriously.

Well then take the judge's ruling seriously. And take the state laws that require a background check to purchase a gun seriously.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Start a 2nd Amendment thread. I defended myself against your misrepresentation. I won't go further off topic in this thread.

No, you didnt.

My post here simply shows your lack of knowledge of the Constitution and why no one looking on should consider your words as serious.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, anywhere that's not already an adult cabaret. That's what I said.

What are you blabbering about now? That's not what I said.

I said an "adult cabaret" is anywhere that a prurient performance is occurring. Nothing in the new law changes that. All the new law does is include cross-dressing with a prurient purpose as an activity that creates an "adult cabaret." In simple terms (since you don't appear capable of understanding legality), don't go shaking your booty in front of children... even if you are cross-dressing, even if you're not doing it for pay.

Again, Tennessee's obscenity law is clear on what kind of entertainment/behavior is regarded as obscene/prurient. This law is unclear as to why a person imitating a man or a woman is regarded as obscene, whether or not they're performing for consideration.

It is clear. That was the problem. Transsexual activists found a loophole. This closes it.

Here's what the law says, according to TN Code § 7-51-1401 (2019):

“Adult cabaret” means a cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators, or similar entertainers;

Notice that the law, as it was 4 years ago, still included "male or female impersonators." The problem this law fixed is that people would still dress up in a sexual manner for children but claim not to be impersonating anyone. It also means that such a person cannot claim they were doing the performance for free to skirt the law.

Good catch, Sherlock!
The judge temporarily blocked the law's enforcement because the law is too broad, making it unconstitutional.

Good catch? You were the one claiming it wasn't about you. Try picking a side and staying on it, willya?

There has been no determination of Constitutionality yet. That's not what a Temporary Restraining Order does. All that TRO does is prevent the law from going into effect until there is a determination. A TRO is supposed to be issued when there is a likelihood of the law causing irreversible damage and the judge believes there is a likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing. Neither is really applicable in this case; convictions under the law would be reversible (it does not carry the death penalty) and the Constitutionality of restrictions on sexually-inspired performances for children is a well-established legal principle with a tremendous body of precedent.

This judge is out of line and should be removed from office simply for violating his authority to issue TROs.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The word is "consideration". Not "compensation". Big difference.

The difference is that "consideration" includes more than monetary payoffs. You're arguing against yourself now.

But you are correct on the wording. Consideration can be anything one considers to be of value. Compensation can be interpreted to mean monetary consideration.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Maxmars

What is the idea being propagated when that particular activity is the purpose of the display? Story hour was one thing... dancing and parading around in exposition is entirely different. The departure from "the reason for the performance" is what empowered this opposition.

This law does include intent. The only restriction is on those adult activities which are intended to be of a prurient nature.

I gave a reprint of the law along with a link earlier. The arguments against this law all seem to have one thing in common: a misunderstanding of what the law actually says.

TheRedneck