A Republican-sponsored Ohio bill would create a new criminal offense called “unlawful adult cabaret performance” for what would be considered an “obscene” performance in a public place where minors may be present.
The bill, titled the “Indecent Exposure Modernization Act,” defines an “adult cabaret” as a nightclub, bar, restaurant, bottle club, or other venue, whether or not it serves alcohol, in which performers “appear naked or semi-nude” and features live or recorded content depicting specific anatomical areas or sexual acts.
Such performances are only permitted in designated adult cabarets and are prohibited in public places or where minors may be present.
The bill outlines criteria for what may be considered illegal, including content that refers to sex or bodily functions, is intended to titillate viewers, is “devoid of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” and is considered age-inappropriate for minors based on prevailing societal standards.
The bill passed the Ohio House on a mostly party-line vote of 63-32, with one Republican joining all Democrats in opposition.
Critics say the measure is so vague that it could be used to prosecute and shut down drag brunches, drag reading hours, pride parades and other public displays of gender nonconformity.
But state Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania Township), a co-sponsor of the bill restricting transgender rights and visibility, said the Indecent Exposure Modernization Act is not intended to make it illegal. drag All about the performance.
“This bill does not say that drag queen performances are inherently obscene. I know other states have taken that approach, but this bill does not,” Williams said during a hearing in the Ohio House Judiciary Committee, where the bill was brought to the full chamber for a vote. “This law only prohibits performers who engage in obscene acts involving drugs.”
Williams pushed back against concerns that police and prosecutors could apply overly broad definitions of “obscene” or age-inappropriate content to target gender-neutral expressions, arguing that all laws are ultimately subject to interpretation by law enforcement.
“Every law known to man can be abused by law enforcement officials, and we saw that over and over again during the Jim Crow era,” Williams, who is Black, told the committee during a hearing.
Dwayne Steward, CEO and executive director of Equality Ohio, said the state’s top LGBTQ advocacy group opposes the bill precisely because of those concerns.
“In terms of changing the meaning of ‘obscene,’ this bill would allow conservative actors within Ohio to use it as a weapon to police drag performers and the transgender community,” Steward said. metro weeklypoints to language that identifies performers who wear clothing that does not match their assigned gender at birth.
“An overzealous prosecutor or law enforcement officer might see a group of children who appear to be dressed provocatively on the way to Pride, for example, and decide they want to police that group based on their ideology. And based on the language of this bill, they can do that. That’s our main problem,” Steward said.
“This bill goes far beyond drag performers and the trans community because it changes the definition of indecent exposure. Normally, you can’t show genitals or private parts in public, which is clearly obscene. But by changing the bill’s language from ‘private parts’ to ‘private areas,’ it means that criminal charges are no longer dependent on actual exposure.” “That means you could be prosecuted if you saw someone wearing a sports bra and thought they were showing too much of their private parts, even though they were covered.”
Steward said the lack of Republican opposition reflects a broader obsession among conservative lawmakers with suppressing or restricting transgender visibility.
“Sadly, this is conservative politics within the state of Ohio that seeks to suppress and erase LGBTQ people, especially transgender people, from public life,” he said. “We’ve seen this with various bills over the past few years that attack communities that make up less than 1 percent of the population. They passed a bill that eliminated gender-affirming care for transgender youth and banned transgender people from bathrooms on college campuses. … I don’t know why this is their focus, but they turned it into an unnecessary culture war.”
Steward also said the measure could cost the state money if challenged in court.
“We definitely believe that if this were passed into law, there would be legal challenges, especially if we have overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials trying to shut down Prides across the state,” he said. “Even conservative politicians have said themselves that they expect legal challenges. This bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment.”
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
