Groomers win another court case, allowing kids to view explicit drag shows

The groomers have just won another court case, as a federal judge RULED that a Tennessee law designed to prevent kids from seeing men pretending to be women mimic sex acts is unconstitutional.

Tennessee's majority-Republican legislature passed the law earlier this year.  It didn't limit adults from watching drag shows, but barred children from drag shows, and from such shows being performed outdoors where children could watch.  

To repeat: The law didn't limit the rights of adults to watch drag shows.

But of course pro-groomer groups DEMAND that they be allowed to perform in front of kids.  (Odd, eh?  Why the interest in kids?)  So in March the group filed suit specifically because they wanted to be able to perform explicit drag shows in front of children, with no age restrictions.
 
District Judge Thomas Parker ruled that the law was both “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad." He wrote, 

 “Whether some of us may like it or not, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as protecting speech that is indecent but not obscene.”

He then RULED that while men mimicking sex acts in front of children was "sexually explicit," it was NOT obscene.

Neat, eh?

The actual word “drag” doesn't appear in the law.  Instead the law banned “adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors.”  That doesn't seem unreasonable but is definitely vague.  But instead of limiting his objection to vagueness, the judge made the huge and unsupported leap that the law was actually aimed at *all* drag performances, writing

“The word ‘drag’ never appears in the text of the [new law].  But the Court cannot escape that ‘drag’ was the one common thread in all three specific examples of conduct that was considered ‘harmful to minors,’ in the legislative transcript.”

According to the lawsuit from the pro-groomer group, last year two Republican lawmakers sought to block a drag show that was part of a "Pride festival."  Organizers eventually reached a settlement to hold the event indoors with an age restriction.  Seems reasonable.

The judge cited that incident, and other Republican lawmakers objecting to drag shows in their hometowns [this is NPR's version; I suspect the truth is they were objecting to kids attending the shows] as showing that even though the new law did NOT restrict adults from viewing drag shows, it was really “geared towards placing prospective blocks on drag shows regardless of their potential harm to minors.”

In other words, it didn't matter that the law didn't restrict drag performers from doing their thing for adults, because the judge simply ruled that that was the real, hidden purpose.

It's exactly like judges ruling that state laws requiring voters to show photo ID aren't constitutional because the judges DECREE that the real, hidden purpose of those laws is..."voter suppression."

See how clever that is?

NPR ends the piece with this lie:

The Tennessee drag law marks the second major proposal targeting LGBTQ+ people passed by state lawmakers this year.  [Governor] Lee signed into law GOP-backed legislation banning most gender-affirming care, which is being challenged in court.

The law does no such thing, as NPR well knows.  What it does is ban doctors from performing mutilating, irreversible procedures--including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones--on children under 18.  Huge difference, and NPR knows it.  But low-info voters don't know what "gender-affirming care" means, and if they believe the false name they'd likely side with the tranny mafia that banning "most gender-affirming" health care would be unreasonable--which was the reason NPR wrote it that way.

Source.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-rules-tennessees-anti-drag-law-unconstitutionally-vague