You know how sometimes the legislature takes a little problem, and goes too far in addressing it?
Representative Chris Karr has apparently done just that with brand new House Bill 1116, which purports to “prohibit the use of state resources in hosting lewd or lascivious content” in response to the SDSU Drag show that invited children to a decidedy adult event. As related in the bill..
Section 1. That chapter 13-1 be amended with a NEW SECTION:
The Board of Regents, the Board of Technical Education, or any institution under their control; a state agency or any institution under the control of a state agency; or a public school district may not authorize or expend public moneys or use any state-owned facility or property to develop, implement, facilitate, host, promote, or fund any lewd or lascivious content.
For the purpose of this section, the term, lewd or lascivious content, means any program, event, or literature presenting obscene live conduct, as defined by subdivision 22-24-27(10), or obscene material, as defined by subdivision 22-24-27(11), that depicts, describes, or simulates, as applicable:
(1) Any specific sexual activity, as defined in § 11-12-1;
(2) Any specific anatomical areas, as defined in § 11-12-1;
(3) Nude or seminude adults, as defined in § 11-12-1;
(4) Adults who remove clothing for the entertainment of one or more individuals; or
(5) Any physical human body activity, whether performed alone or with other persons, including singing, speaking, dancing, acting, simulation, or pantomiming, where a performer exhibits a gender identity that is different from the performer’s biological sex through the use of clothing, makeup, or other physical markers, for the predominant purpose of appealing to a prurient interest.
Read the whole(some?) bill here.
Most of the first section is not disagreeable for the most part, although I’m not sure how you can have “literature presenting obscene live conduct.”
No one wants taxpayers to pay for strip shows on campus. But then we get to the weird part, subpoint (5):
(5) Any physical human body activity, whether performed alone or with other persons, including singing, speaking, dancing, acting, simulation, or pantomiming, where a performer exhibits a gender identity that is different from the performer’s biological sex through the use of clothing, makeup, or other physical markers, for the predominant purpose of appealing to a prurient interest.
I’d love for them to explain how they are going to interpret and enforce this one.
“Any physical human body activity, whether performed alone or with other persons, including singing, speaking, dancing, acting, simulation, or pantomiming..” So, if one of the University Drama departments puts on a production of Victor/Victoria, which is very much a musical about a woman who pretends to be a man.. pretending to be in drag.. they’re going to be bumping up against the law?
Yes, yes, I know. There is another element. They aren’t going to ban it just for the sake of musical theatre. They are only banning the expenditure of public funds if it is for the predominant purpose of appealing to a prurient interest. Which begs the question, what is a prurient interest? According to federal courts, a court case footnote defined prurient interest as “having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts.” Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
Well, how are they going to know ahead of time if the dude in the dress on stage is going to excite lustful thoughts in a member of the audience? Will there be a designated university lust-checker, or will they bid that out on state contract, so they know ahead of time if the activity will be fundable if a man dons a dress, or a woman wears trousers on a campus stage? This legislation is silly at best, and that’s the problem. Whenever you put things like this in place, it’s just more government at it’s worst.
Do we need bans on singing or pantomiming as the opposite sex placed into statute? No. Because runaway puritanism is no different than runaway wokism. Both only promise more government and nobody is asking for it.
When the Board of Regents recently moved forward a motion to “draft a policy about minors’ attendance of campus events,” that actually was a reasonable and proportionate step in addressing the situation before another campus group tries to have something as offensive as a “kid-friendly” drag show. The need for some legislators to come in and try to propose a law is not government acting as minimally as possible to solve a problem. Which is what is needed as opposed to a soapbox.
The BOR should have the opportunity to resolve the issue. Only if it keeps happening should legislation be discussed. But not until then.