LGBTQ+ groups and drag performers suing the state argued Monday that Senate Bill 12 violates constitutionally-protected rights. The new law is set to go into effect on Friday unless a federal judge blocks it.
This feels so stupid. There are people out there that really want to ban such shows? It’s an art like any other. What’s next, ban street mimes? Make improv ilegal?
It’s part of the Republicans’ strategy to stir up trans panic and use it as a wedge issue. Drag is only tangentially connected to trans people but their voters don’t know that.
I mean, wankers like Lawrence Fox and Calvin Robinson are trying to push all this stuff in the UK, but it doesn’t seem to be picking up as much steam as in the US.
What an asshole! Hilarious though that he ran for mayor and, in spite of having the name recognition of being an actor from a prominent family, he didn’t even get enough votes for his deposit to be refunded 🤣
Who is banning such shows?
Nay, why, let’s all also make lap dances and pole dancing available to kids in school. Sure they are art forms and first amendment applies there too. /s
Lap dances and pole dancing are not the same as a drag show, but while we are on the topic. You cool with me whipping Jesus in public, then nailing him to a fake cross with fake blood running down his face?
The topic was first amendment. Stay in context. Either acknowledge that it’s not a good argument, or accept that they are “the same as drag show” within that context.
Not even sure what the Jesus thing is about, but I suppose everything is being allowed under the pretext of first amendment so why not. It sounds like an enactment which is a - what did people call it - an “art form”.
You two were made for each other. If you were both dolls, now is when you’d start kissing.
This subbranch starts with a “/s” comment; it isn’t clear what is supposed to be sarcastic and instead reads like earnest illogic. There’s no spacing distinction between sarcasm and not, so is the entire comment sarcastic?
Then you jump in with a serious reply that immediately starts providing evidence for an unstated claim, which you presumably believe is “obvious.” The first girl is introducing the context of schools. Are you sticking with that or switching to the different context of public? If you’re pivoting to the general public, then you’re off topic.
Then the first girl replies as if she made an argument. She also doesn’t acknowledge you (maybe) changing the context to public. She seems to be fixated on exposing children who are in school to material unrelated to the curriculum.
As a note, the first amendment is context dependent. For example, shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is not covered; this is because it would likely lead to injury via a stampede. A realistic re-enactment of a Jew being tortured and executed by a foreign government being performed for children at school might not be covered.
This feels so stupid. There are people out there that really want to ban such shows? It’s an art like any other. What’s next, ban street mimes? Make improv ilegal?
It’s part of the Republicans’ strategy to stir up trans panic and use it as a wedge issue. Drag is only tangentially connected to trans people but their voters don’t know that.
Men portrayed women for thousands of years until western societies began allowing female actors join their troupes.
In the UK, it’s still traditional for a bloke to play a female character comedicly in Pantomimes each Christmas.
Imagine even suggesting drag be banned in the UK. Even the church would be saying, “what about Widow Twankey?!”
I mean, wankers like Lawrence Fox and Calvin Robinson are trying to push all this stuff in the UK, but it doesn’t seem to be picking up as much steam as in the US.
*reads up on Fox *
What an asshole! Hilarious though that he ran for mayor and, in spite of having the name recognition of being an actor from a prominent family, he didn’t even get enough votes for his deposit to be refunded 🤣
Now that women can play women, we don’t need that anymore.
I mean they’re already implementing what is next: Making it illegal to look/be trans in public
deleted by creator
I might be in favor of that one…
Not ban, just make sure if you have adult content only adults can attend. Simple as that
That is already the case.
Who is banning such shows? Nay, why, let’s all also make lap dances and pole dancing available to kids in school. Sure they are art forms and first amendment applies there too. /s
Lap dances and pole dancing are not the same as a drag show, but while we are on the topic. You cool with me whipping Jesus in public, then nailing him to a fake cross with fake blood running down his face?
The topic was first amendment. Stay in context. Either acknowledge that it’s not a good argument, or accept that they are “the same as drag show” within that context.
Not even sure what the Jesus thing is about, but I suppose everything is being allowed under the pretext of first amendment so why not. It sounds like an enactment which is a - what did people call it - an “art form”.
Youre the one talking about lap dances dipshit
And you are the one talking about drag shows, and started verbal slurs “dipshit”.
You’re such a dumbass lmao.
You two were made for each other. If you were both dolls, now is when you’d start kissing.
This subbranch starts with a “/s” comment; it isn’t clear what is supposed to be sarcastic and instead reads like earnest illogic. There’s no spacing distinction between sarcasm and not, so is the entire comment sarcastic?
Then you jump in with a serious reply that immediately starts providing evidence for an unstated claim, which you presumably believe is “obvious.” The first girl is introducing the context of schools. Are you sticking with that or switching to the different context of public? If you’re pivoting to the general public, then you’re off topic.
Then the first girl replies as if she made an argument. She also doesn’t acknowledge you (maybe) changing the context to public. She seems to be fixated on exposing children who are in school to material unrelated to the curriculum.
As a note, the first amendment is context dependent. For example, shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is not covered; this is because it would likely lead to injury via a stampede. A realistic re-enactment of a Jew being tortured and executed by a foreign government being performed for children at school might not be covered.
Then comes hurling of insults.