Texas’ ban on certain drag shows is unconstitutional, federal judge says

Critics sued the state, saying it violated the First Amendment.
And taxpayer dollars, which Republicans claim to be such responsible stewards of, are being wasted to defend lawsuits like this.
- Part of the reason I'm trying to move out of this shithole state. Tired of my money funding these hateful fucks.
- I assume republicans in Texas blame critics for forcing Texas to use taxpayer money to fight lawsuits
  
  It's like arguing with a drunk.
  
  This is correct. They actually do care about tax dollars being used to defend lawsuits when they could be used for more conservative things like buying bibles for public schools and funding beauty pageants for tots dressed entirely in ammunition
- conservatism died a long time ago
- I mean, yeah. Their supporters see sexual and gender differences as degeneracy that will bring down civilization. Of course they support using tax money that way.

1A baybee
- Republicans: “No, not like that!”
- You mean the document doesn't start (and end) on 2? Huh...

Ya think?

This is the best summary I could come up with:
U.S. District Judge David Hittner found Senate Bill 12 “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.” The struck-down law prohibited any performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children.
“It is not unreasonable to read SB 12 and conclude that activities such as cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences could possibly become a civil or criminal violation.”
While SB 12 was originally billed as legislation that would prevent children from seeing drag shows, the final version did not directly reference people dressing as the opposite gender.
In Tuesday's 56-page ruling, Hittner noted a survey of court decisions "reveals little divergence from the opinion that drag performances are expressive content that is afforded First Amendment protection."
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said that West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler acted within his authority when he canceled a campus drag show.
"Today’s ruling is a celebration for the LGBTQ community and those who support free expression in the Lone Star State," GLAAD President and Chief Executive Officer Sarah Kate Ellis.
The original article contains 796 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
- Bad bot. Summary references two federal trial level judges with different opinions, without explaining why there are two different trial level judges. I will read full article to see why there are two different judges on the same case. EDIT: not the same case. Summary omits context - different judges ruling differently in different cases concerning drag.

When you think about it, the cons sure are creepy weirdos - obsessed with things like this so very, very much. Wonder why?
- Combination of things:
  Some are just assholes who hate anything they're told to hate.
  Some are self-hating because they're in the closet themselves.
  Some have bought into the "groomer" lies.
  And some are child molesters who've figured out that if they can get everyone in the first three groups to focus on drag queens, it takes the heat off.

It's a bit tiring that every single infringement on people's rights to exist has to be combatted via 1A because the only thing that trumps dAsTaRdLy BeHaViOr In FrOnT oF cHiLdReN is free speech.
Is that literally the only framework US law sees? Can't it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they're hateful bigots?
- Can’t it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they’re hateful bigots?
  Of course not, because that would violate their 1A rights to be hateful bigots.
- Bigoted speech is itself free speech. It’s fundamentally important that the law doesn’t make subjective judgement calls like this on what views are good or bad precisely because it protects the minority.

Key words: "In front of children"
- How does it harm children to see someone in prosthetics dancing and lip synching?
  
  I don't think it's good to expose children to grown men in revealing outfits twerking in front of them while kids are encouraged to tuck dollar bills into the dragqueens shirt like a stripper. Which happens and you don't bat an eye. Just because you're sexually desensitized doesn't mean it's okay to expose children to it.
- Key words: straw man. Guessing almost zero drag shows happen in front of children
  
  If I were to present you evidence of sexually explicit actions happening at a drag show in front of children would you change your mind?

Ya, Drag shows for children, how would they grow up right without them.... SERIOUSLY!
- I'll never understand authoritarians who can't separate "that's not something I'm interested in" and "that should be illegal"
  
  Do you feel similarly about porn? Should children be able to access it?
  
  Funny, I'll never understand the people that can't differentiate the things that are appropriate for children and things that aren't. Funny, not too long ago people were able to do that, regardless of political bullshit.
- If u don't like it then don't go to it.
  You have no right to take it away from other people just because it makes your pp feel strange. Get over it.
- Seriously what do you guys even get out of wasting your life with low effort troll posts on lemmy. Like do you actually not have frejnds or family you would rather spend your time on? Or hobbies? Or even just video games or looking at memes? Is it an extention seeking thing?
- Can the Federal judge tell them that the same thing drag shows are being accused of Churches are actively doing to kids and getting away with it?
- Cry harder.
- At least try harder...

I for one am fucking sick of hearing about this particular subject. Why is anyone talking about this?
- Are you child? If not, it doesn't affect your rights, as this law applies to children.
  
  Nah, maybe just that it is fuckall business of government and they should concentrate on real issues instead of poking their nose into what clothes people wear?
- i am not an expert on the subject but i would imagine it’s because it has implications for the safety and legal rights of trans people. if they’re able to pass laws banning drag queens, they might then start (incorrectly) claiming that trans people are drag queens and thus those laws apply to them.
  
  Exactly this.
  Step 1) Declare that all drag performances are sexually explicit and therefore shouldn't be allowed near kids. This is false, of course. There are plenty of PG or G rated drag shows where nothing even remotely explicit happens, but they need this lie to be enshrined into law.
  Step 2) Declare that trans people, by existing, are "performing drag in public." Again, false, but this would mean that trans people wouldn't be allowed to be dressed in their preferred gender anywhere there might be kids. Even simply walking through the grocery store would be declared "sexually explicit behavior in the presence of children" and could result in criminal charges.
  The right will stop at nothing to enforce their radical Christian views on the country and they don't care whose lives they ruin to do this.
  
  Not even just trans people... you know the end game of this kind of shit is to go back to a time where women don't wear pants (because they legally can't).
  
  They're not banning drag queens, they're banning sexually explicit drag shows for children. Drag shows are still 100% legal.
- You keep hearing about the GOP vilifying and persecuting LGBTQ+ people because it's against the supposed ideals of the country and the GOP keep doing it. If you want news about LGBTQ+ issues to stop, you need to make the GOP stop.
  
  You are being distracted. Focus. You CAN eat your local representative. One bite at a time.
  People don't need to know what is in the chilli at the cookout.
- Because your apathy doesn't negate the attacks that marginalized people are facing.
- I don't know. You're the one that clicked on the discussion thread. Seems silly to click a link for a discussion on a topic you're bored of. Maybe just keep scrolling next time.
- Because republicans keep violating the constitution and trying to marginalize anyone who isn’t white hetero Christian.
  
  funny how people here suddenly care about the constitution when it comes to showing children sexually explicit material.
- Then read something else.
- This was never a problem until Republicans tried to start banning it. So that's why people are talking about it
- Because keeping us fighting over this keeps us from going after billionaires.
  
  We have a winner.
- You’re telling people to back down from fighting back against persecution? Looking like a target, bruh
- 1A issues are important. I'm just sick of misleading or lying headlines.
- Because people like you keep trying to raise the suicide rate of an already alarming high rate among the group.