Earlier this month, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) became the first governor to sign into law a bill prohibiting certain kinds of drag performances. More specifically, the bill prohibited “adult cabaret” in locations where minors might be present, including “topless” or “exotic” dancers, but also “male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest.”
In a late-breaking plot-twist, shortly before the bill was signed, someone posted a picture on Reddit: a black-and-white photo from Lee’s 1977 high school yearbook. In it, a young man — allegedly Lee as a teenager — wore a miniskirt, pearls and a wig. When asked about the photo, the governor did not confirm or deny that it was him in the photograph. Neither did a spokesperson for the governor, who replied to reporters via email that Tennessee’s bill “specifically protects children from obscene, sexualized entertainment, and any attempt to conflate this serious issue with lighthearted school traditions is dishonest and disrespectful to Tennessee families.”
We do not want to be disrespectful, to anyone. But because the language of the bill is rather vague — “prurient interest” can mean a wide variety of things to a wide variety of people — we might need to explore the difference between a “lighthearted” tradition and the sort of thing that Tennessee is now outlawing.
ADVERTISING
What if the governor donned a dress not as a teenager but as an adult, right now? What if, instead of a high school tradition, the dress-up bit was part of a silly shtick for the town follies? What if Lee were to add some prosthetics to the ensemble? What if the event was a charity look-alike contest for Tennessee’s own Dolly Parton, the beloved country-music icon? What if the governor generously stuffed a bra in his attempt to approximate the singer’s famous physique? Would that be crossing the line into “prurient interest,” or are we still just having a laugh? (Perhaps it would depend on how sultry the governor made his performance of “Touch Your Woman.”)
These are silly hypotheticals, but as long as politicians see the need to make new laws delineating between harmless fun and dangerous obscenity, we might as well talk about where the line is and why. Because something tells me nobody’s about to start legislating against, say, the Tennessee Titans cheerleading uniforms, no matter how much cleavage they show or how publicly they perform or how many minors are in the stands.
I emailed Sen. Jack Johnson (R), the Tennessee state senator who sponsored the bill, to see if he could shed any light on this piece of legislation. Was there a particularly long history of Tennessee children being injuriously exposed to obscene female impersonators? Is this a big problem in his state? What prompted the bill?
Johnson’s press secretary sent me back a statement on his behalf. “I have seen videos of sexually graphic performances where children are present, and it is absolutely despicable,” the statement read. It went on to say that the bill “does not ban drag shows in public. It simply puts age-restrictions in place to ensure that children are not present at sexually explicit performances.”
Free speech advocates worry about the murkiness of the law — “We are concerned that government officials could easily abuse this law to censor people based on their own subjective viewpoints of what they deem appropriate,” the ACLU tweeted.
Broader pieces of legislation are up for debate in states all around the country. Nebraska, Kentucky, West Virginia, South Carolina, Texas, Montana, Kansas and Oklahoma all have various anti-drag bills on the table. A bill proposed in Missouri prohibits activities where drag queens engage in “learning activities with minor children present,” and specifically mentions drag queen story hours.
In a late-breaking plot-twist, shortly before the bill was signed, someone posted a picture on Reddit: a black-and-white photo from Lee’s 1977 high school yearbook. In it, a young man — allegedly Lee as a teenager — wore a miniskirt, pearls and a wig. When asked about the photo, the governor did not confirm or deny that it was him in the photograph. Neither did a spokesperson for the governor, who replied to reporters via email that Tennessee’s bill “specifically protects children from obscene, sexualized entertainment, and any attempt to conflate this serious issue with lighthearted school traditions is dishonest and disrespectful to Tennessee families.”
We do not want to be disrespectful, to anyone. But because the language of the bill is rather vague — “prurient interest” can mean a wide variety of things to a wide variety of people — we might need to explore the difference between a “lighthearted” tradition and the sort of thing that Tennessee is now outlawing.
ADVERTISING
What if the governor donned a dress not as a teenager but as an adult, right now? What if, instead of a high school tradition, the dress-up bit was part of a silly shtick for the town follies? What if Lee were to add some prosthetics to the ensemble? What if the event was a charity look-alike contest for Tennessee’s own Dolly Parton, the beloved country-music icon? What if the governor generously stuffed a bra in his attempt to approximate the singer’s famous physique? Would that be crossing the line into “prurient interest,” or are we still just having a laugh? (Perhaps it would depend on how sultry the governor made his performance of “Touch Your Woman.”)
These are silly hypotheticals, but as long as politicians see the need to make new laws delineating between harmless fun and dangerous obscenity, we might as well talk about where the line is and why. Because something tells me nobody’s about to start legislating against, say, the Tennessee Titans cheerleading uniforms, no matter how much cleavage they show or how publicly they perform or how many minors are in the stands.
I emailed Sen. Jack Johnson (R), the Tennessee state senator who sponsored the bill, to see if he could shed any light on this piece of legislation. Was there a particularly long history of Tennessee children being injuriously exposed to obscene female impersonators? Is this a big problem in his state? What prompted the bill?
Johnson’s press secretary sent me back a statement on his behalf. “I have seen videos of sexually graphic performances where children are present, and it is absolutely despicable,” the statement read. It went on to say that the bill “does not ban drag shows in public. It simply puts age-restrictions in place to ensure that children are not present at sexually explicit performances.”
Free speech advocates worry about the murkiness of the law — “We are concerned that government officials could easily abuse this law to censor people based on their own subjective viewpoints of what they deem appropriate,” the ACLU tweeted.
Broader pieces of legislation are up for debate in states all around the country. Nebraska, Kentucky, West Virginia, South Carolina, Texas, Montana, Kansas and Oklahoma all have various anti-drag bills on the table. A bill proposed in Missouri prohibits activities where drag queens engage in “learning activities with minor children present,” and specifically mentions drag queen story hours.
