Federal judge blocks Florida 'anti-drag' law
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — A federal judge in Orlando has temporarily blocked the enforcement of a Florida law that opponents say stifles the free expression of drag artists, according to newly-released court documents.
On Friday, Judge Gregory A. Presnell ordered a preliminary injunction in response to a lawsuit challenging the bill, which was filed by a drag-themed restaurant, Hamburger Mary's, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Gov. Ron DeSantis signed SB-1438, titled "Protection of Children Act," into law last month. State leaders say the legislation aims to shield children from obscene "adult live performances." Opponents of the bill say it is "anti-drag." Any business caught violating the statute is subject to fines and could have their operating or liquor licenses revoked by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR).
The lawsuit, filed by Hamburger Mary's, alleges that the bill "seeks to explicitly restrict, or chill speech and expression protected by the First Amendment based on its content, its message, and its messenger." The business claims it has been forced to cancel its family-friendly events and to censor themselves out of fear because the statute's language is "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad."
In his ruling, Presnell said the Protection of Children Act "is specifically designed to suppress the speech of drag queen performers." The judge quoted the bill's sponsor, Rep. Randy Fine, who said the legislation "will protect our children by ending the gateway propaganda to this evil — 'Drag Queen Story Time.'"
The defendants in the case, which include Gov. DeSantis and DBPR Secretary Melanie Griffin, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. They alleged that the lawsuit is a "shotgun pleading," accusing Hamburger Mary's of throwing "a mish-mash" of legal arguments at the wall and seeing what sticks. The defendants also sought to dismiss the lawsuit because they claim the the suit lacks legal standing to bring the case and that the State of Florida and its governor are protected by sovereign immunity.
Presnell denied the motion to dismiss, saying Hamburger Mary's faces "a substantial risk to its licenses due to (the law's) vague and overbroad language." He specifically pointed out the terms, "live performance," "child," "lewd conduct," and "lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts" as examples of vague wording.
As justification for issuing the injunction, Presnell cited what he called "the Florida Legislature's failure to narrowly tailor (the law) and is its inevitable clash with the Florida 'Parents' Bill of Rights' and other laws."
The "Parents' Bill of Rights," dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" law by its opponents, states that: "All
parental rights are reserved to the parent of a minor child in this state…including…[t]he right to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of his or her minor child."
Presnell said the "Protection of Children Act" likely contradicts Florida Statute 847.013, which controls minors' exposure to "harmful motion pictures, exhibitions, shows, presentations, or representations." Specifically, the judge pointed to part of the law that "allows for a minor accompanied by his or her parents to attend any such exhibitions, regardless of the minor's age." Presnell compared a parent taking their child to a drag show to a parent taking their child to see an R-rated movie.
The "Protection of Children Act" was set to go into effect on July 1. Presnell ordered that Griffin and the DBPR must not enforce the law until the court can conduct a trial on the merits of the case.
In response to the ruling, a spokesperson for Gov. DeSantis said the following:
Of course it's constitutional to prevent the sexualization of children by limiting access to adult live performances. We believe the judge's opinion is dead wrong and look forward to prevailing on appeal.
Jeremy Redfern, Press Secretary
Tags
Who is online
407 visitors
In case MAGA and DeSantis denialists missed it.
This looks headed to the SCOTUS.
That is not a one way street.
It never was.
But there have always been boundaries, and with good reason. So we'll see how it all shakes out.
Seems to me the boundaries were always up to the parents, which this law is taking away.
Nah. We've had laws in America governing how people are allowed to raise kids since before the Constitution.
This one is a bit interesting because whatever ends up happening for drag shows is probably also going to happen for strip clubs.
This is one of those insane ideas that should never have even been part of public debate. How crazy are people when there is an argument about whether or not strip clubs and drag shows are appropriate places for children?
If you are going to conflate a drag show to a strip club, this conversation is not even worth continuing.
So have at it on your own.
The law in question addresses "obscene live performances". So if the law is unconstitutional, the ruling will apply to both.
Once again trying to tie two things together that have nothing to do with each other. Bad form.
Might as well compare an R rated movie to a strip club...
Well... women dressed in pants dancing and singing is okay, but men in dresses dancing and singing is "obscene"? It makes no fucking sense to me where they have any leg to stand on here. None...
Anyplace where these anti-drag show laws stand will see a backlash from other entertainers refusing to put on shows that generate bring in tons of revenue.
Well, according to a FL Supreme Court ruling, they're both "indecent", so the law is treating them the same.
So no Taylor Swift concerts in FL? We don't want to sexualize the children... Her shows are way worse than most daytime drag shows and far more children in attendence.
Well, the original ruling back in the day was about "men impersonating women" in performances that were "nasty, suggestive and indecent."
So I think Taylor is in the clear. I dunno.
Sounds like someone's trying to take away the parent's rights to say what is "nasty, suggestive and indecent" for their own children AND the performer's rights to free speech.
Because she's not a guy? She's wearing less clothes in those concert shows and way more suggestive.
Again, that's not new.
And contrary to the current wave of liberal knicker twist over the subject, it's not bad, either. The laws were originally written to prevent fathers from taking their kids places no kid should go. That's still an issue.
Probably because she's not enacting a clinically defined sexual fetish in front of kids. And before you go ape shit, I'm not the one who defined it.
I'll defer to your experience on that.
What is this clinical study...
I will add also from what I gather, you have never been to a drag show. I have and there was nothing sexual at all.
[deleted]
So odd about this fetish some have about harmless drag shows - there is no naked dancing going on - like Greg said also.
It's fucking nuts.
[deleted]
Well, if you've been to one, that means none of them could possibly be, right?
Well son of a gun, you're wrong AGAIN!!!!
There are naked bike rides across the US every year. Nothing new.
Also has nothing to do with drag shows.
Expand you horizons and check one out. Afraid?
[Deleted]
World naked bike rides go in every year in Austin, Portland, Milwaukee, Boston, etc...
The issue of the article is the FL law where the judge has now said -
To compare all drag shows to "sexual fetish" shows is ignorance. Most of the anti-drag show laws have already failed under judicial scrutiny.
And pretending none of them are is positively moronic.
Laws are not written to protect people from best case scenarios.
No one here but you is saying that. What SOME people are saying is ALL drag shows are adult entertainment and that's a lie.
Laws are written for all kinds of reasons. Some make sense and some don't. It's why we have a judiciary as a check on stupid.
No, it's you who is wrong ALWAYS.
Defending the indefensible as always, [ Deleted. ]
The Daily Caller is a rag like the National Enquirer, real trustworthy
Sort of like pretending that only good people buy AR15s for self defense?
No, they are mostly politically seasonable nonsense until a reasonable court throws them out.
How many mass causalities have there been because a child saw burlesque or Vuadville?
Well if you can cite someone saying that we can move your fallacy from "straw man" to "whataboutism".
About as many as there have been from kids spending alone time with Rudy Kos.
I'm not sure that's a relevant litmus test.
Just read back. What was this Florida SC ruling. I would like to see it.
Oh it dates back to the 1940s.
I don't remember the precise case, but it was about a place called the HaHa Club.
Unless SCOTUS reverses Miller v California and its progeny, I don’t see any of these anti-drag laws holding up. And even then, that will be after they are thrown out for being either unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that these things are so poorly crafted, considering how little thought obviously went into them.
Poorly crafted is an understatement, this is part of the Judges decision where he points out that this new DeSantis law contradicts a current Florida law:
“…these things are so poorly crafted…”
Intentionally.
They aren’t meant to pass the legal hurdles. They are meant to solidify the populist base, and when they inevitably fail to meet legal muster, it becomes just another log to throw on the conspiratorial bonfire.
Insidious in its simplicity and frightening in its frequency and potential ramifications.
Texas anti sexual whatever law was so vague that legitimate entertainment was worried,
until Gregg Abbot proudly tweeted that he just signed the anti drag law.
CMTSU
Now it will most certainly be struck down, post haste.