If you decide to personalize the statement, here are some current legal cases focused on drag and the Supreme Court case on obscenity.
According to the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), something is legally obscene only if, applying contemporary community standards, a reasonable person would find that the work, when viewed holistically, appeals to prurient interests, contains patently offensive content, and lacks any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Murfreesboro anti-LGBTQ+ Ordinance:
Federal District Court Approved Settlement - City Council Deleted Homosexuality
As part of the settlement, the city of Murfreesboro, Tennessee will be required to pay $500,000 and repeal an ordinance which had included “homosexuality” in its ban on “public indecency.” The Murfreesboro City Council had already repealed the ordinance in late December, after removing any mention of homosexuality the month prior.
Tennessee Adult Entertainment Act
Federal Dist. Court Blocked in the 6th Federal Circuit
On June 2, 2023, Judge Thomas Parker, a Trump-appointed federal district court judge in western Tennessee, issued a 70-page ruling that Tennessee’s “Adult Entertainment Act” violated the First Amendment’s free speech protection. As Parker noted at the beginning of his opinion, “Freedom of speech is not just about speech. It is also about the right to debate with fellow citizens on self-government, to discover the truth in the marketplace of ideas, to express one’s identity, and to realize self-fulfillment in a free society. That freedom is of first importance to many Americans such that the United States Supreme Court has relaxed procedural requirements for citizens to vindicate their right to freedom of speech, while making it harder for the government to regulate it. This case is about one such regulation.”
Florida Protection of Children Act
Fed Stay at 11th Cir. SC denied State’s Stay on the District Court’s Stay
On June 23, 2023, U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell issued a 24-page ruling enjoining Florida Department of Business and Professional, he wrote, “This concern rings hollow, however, when accompanied by the knowledge that Florida state law, presently and independently of the instant statutory scheme, permits any minor to attend an R-rated film at a movie theater if accompanied by a parent or guardian. Such R-Rated films routinely convey content at least as objectionable as that covered by Section 827.11.”
Texas university canceled a drag show - (Only one found by Federal Judge against it)
Federal District Court Denied Stay – 5th Circuit
On September 21, 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk wrote a 26-page ruling that West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler acted within his authority when he canceled a campus drag show and that Free Speech jurisprudence had "not clearly established that all ‘drag shows’ are categorically ‘expressive conduct.’”
Judge Hittner, also from Texas, acknowledged the Panhandle ruling in his later ruling by emphasizing the letter in which Wendler explained his reasoning for banning the show, comparing drag to blackface and a slapstick sideshow. “The president's sentiment reinforces this Court's opinion that while some people may find a performance offensive or morally objectionable, it does not mean the performance is not expressive or given First Amendment protection," he wrote. "Not all people will like or condone certain performances. 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.”
Texas Anti-Drag Bill
Federal Dist. Court Blocked
On September 26, 2023, U.S. District Judge David Hittner found on September 26, 2023 in the 56-page ruling that Senate Bill 12 “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.” The law prohibited any performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children. He noted a survey of court decisions "reveals little divergence from the opinion that drag performances are expressive content that is afforded First Amendment protection."
“The Court sees no way to read the provisions of SB 12 without concluding that a large amount of constitutionally-protected conduct can and will be wrapped up in the enforcement of SB 12,” the ruling reads. “It is not unreasonable to read SB 12 and conclude that activities such as cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences could possibly become a civil or criminal violation.”
"Drag shows express a litany of emotions and purposes, from humor and pure entertainment to social commentary on gender roles," the ruling reads. "There is no doubt that at the bare minimum these performances are meant to be a form of art that is meant to entertain, alone this would warrant some level of First Amendment protection.”
Montana Drag-related Law
Federal Dist. Court Blocked
On October 13, 2023, U.S. District Judge Brian Morris wrote in his 53-page ruling that “No evidence before the Court indicates that minors face any harm from drag-related events or other speech and expression critical of gender norms.” He also wrote that it “will disproportionally harm not only drag performers, but any person who falls outside traditional gender and identity norms, including transgender people.” The Montana lawmakers sought to ban minors from attending what it calls “sexually oriented” performances, and bans such performances in public places where minors might be present.
