- This topic has 14 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 3 months ago by
.
- Topic
This is just to note that a Federal judge has permanently enjoined the Tennessee “Adult Entertainment Act.” The AEA criminalized any male impersonator or female impersonator’s “performance” if it could be deemed harmful to minors. “Harmful to minors” is defined in the AEA to include any appeal to “shameful” interests. The Court found that theAEA is an unconstitutional restriction on speech, because the “harmful to minors” standard is vague and does not provide notice of what is prohibited, and “encourages discriminatory enforcement,” among other reasons. For example, the Court noted that the law was apparently intended to apply to a “family-friendly” drag show, with no mention of any sexual content.
As a lawyer, I think it’s a fair inference from the opinion, and from the text and history of the law itself, that anyone crossdressing in Tennessee would be at risk, if the law still stood. Crossdressing itself, apart from any prurient expression, would be considered “harmful to minors,” so crossdressing in public would apparently be a violation. Even crossdressing in private, if a minor were present, would be a violation. A second offense would be a felony, which means a year or more in prison. These are the kind of things that the Court found intolerable in its analysis.
To sum up: the anti-drag law in Tennessee has been struck down. It is no longer the law. For the time being, at least, it is legal to crossdress in Tennessee.
12 users thanked author for this post.
- Replies
Registered On: February 2, 2021Topics: 99Replies: 344Has thanked: 262 timesBeen thanked: 2836 timesBrilliant news. So many backward ideals over that side of the pond. It’s nice to know that common sense still has it’s place!
Crack open a can of Bud Light to celebrate 🙂Cerys.
1 user thanked author for this post.
- Registered On: November 21, 2022Topics: 32Replies: 250Has thanked: 113 timesBeen thanked: 1401 times
Maybe Tennessee is an ok place to move to after all.
- Registered On: August 31, 2018Topics: 10Replies: 116Has thanked: 161 timesBeen thanked: 281 times
Kerri Smith: “Maybe Tennessee is an ok place to move to after all.”
No, it’s not.
(I wrote a much longer reply, Kerri, but what I said is probably against the rules here, so I deleted it.)
1 user thanked author for this post.
It’s hard to comprehend removing rights in a free country– Religion & Politics “”Should” never meet but here we are–People came West to have Freedom OF & FROM Religion & of course economic opportunity— Politicians & religious leaders are now saying “You can live in Freedom -As long as you live like ME”” Promoting Hatred & making money—Greed—-
- Registered On: November 27, 2022Topics: 19Replies: 240Has thanked: 667 timesBeen thanked: 1739 times
Just to correct one thing that you say, a Federal Judge doesn’t have authority to permanently overturn any law, only the Supreme Court has that power.
1 user thanked author for this post.
No, that’s not correct. Any Federal court has the right to issue an injunction in any case before it enjoining enforcement of a law that it finds to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, of course, might overrule a lower court, but it hears fewer than 100 cases a year, and generally only takes cases that are considered to be important ones.
For example, there is a Federal court in West Texas with only one judge, who happens to be fully committed to using his authority for right-wing causes. Right-wing agents, accordingly, like to bring cases to his court, where they are assured of a very favorable hearing. Recently, he entered an order purporting to “stay” a decision of the FDA from many years ago, approving the use of mifepristone as an abortifacient, and his order applies across the nation. (Another court has ruled in an opposite way, however, setting up a conflict between the two Federal courts, which likely will be settled in due course by the Supreme Court.)
- Registered On: November 27, 2022Topics: 19Replies: 240Has thanked: 667 timesBeen thanked: 1739 times
The Supreme Court, of course, might overrule a lower court.
Federal judge has permanently enjoined the Tennessee “
The above are quotes from your original post as well as your response . I pointed out that only the Supreme Court can “ permanently” enjoin anything. Just trying to correct you. But still based on what you say think you agree that it might not be permanent. I’m just trying to clarify. It does seem that we agree, and that what I posted is factually correct.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Thanks, Jennifer. I took your comment to mean that a lower Federal court would not have the power to issue an order that would apply across the US, or perhaps that a lower Federal court just didn’t have the authority to strike down laws. That would not have been correct.
But you have corrected my misapprehension, and I think we do agree: the Federal court in Tennessee does have the right to strike down laws (in this case a Tennessee state law), subject to the power of higher courts (appellate and Supreme) to reverse such a decision. A decision at the district level can be appealed as of right to the applicable Court of Appeals, but if not appealed, would become final and “permanent,” if you will. A decision by the Court of Appeals can be taken to the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court allows it, but if it does not take the case (or if the losing party does not request review) then the Court of Appeals’s decision becomes final and “permanent.”
That doesn’t mean that the TN legislature won’t have another crack at writing an anti-CD law that will NOT be unconstitutional. It seems that they thought they had done so with the one that was struck down, since it copied language from another statute that had been on the books without challenge for decades. But now, with this decision in hand, perhaps they will use it as a roadmap for how to write it so that it passes muster.
To sum up, the state of play in Tennessee today, which could easily change due to possible appeals, and possible future laws, is that crossdressing is legal
1 user thanked author for this post.
- Registered On: November 10, 2019Topics: 12Replies: 1197Has thanked: 9 timesBeen thanked: 3395 times
The unfortunate thing is that legislators choose to work on BS like this rather than substantive issues. It isn’t like climate change, aging infrastructure, the war in Ukraine, gun violence and dark money in politics don’t exist. That’s what makes this all so stupid.
3 users thanked author for this post.
- Registered On: September 9, 2022Topics: 5Replies: 27Has thanked: 50 timesBeen thanked: 212 times
Somehow because of all the things that are currently changing I feel society is going backwards in history. I feel that all the social activists that worked so hard to change the world for better was wasted because we are heading into a direction were abortion is illegal again, homosexuality under death punishment in some countries, LGBTQ+ rights ignored. Racism, misogyny and hatred are raising. Sometimes i feel i don’t want to live in a retrograde world.
I’m happy the bill was overturned in your state.4 users thanked author for this post.
Another way to look at it is this: the world is changing — in a generally “progressive” direction — at lightning speed. Think of the way gay marriage was viewed just ten years ago! Or twenty!! This progress is something to celebrate, if you like freedom of expression, but it absolutely freaks out the bigots and “conservatives” who can’t stand the idea that the world might be slightly different than they imagined it to be.
It’s because they are so freaked out, that they feel the need to strike out at those who are destroying society, in their minds, by challenging and changing social norms. I would say, however, that it’s an example of “creative destruction” (Schumpeter’s idea applied in the social realm). But it entails a lot of turmoil.
This topic is temporarily locked.
Recent Comments