Another drag show showdown: Florida targets prominent Miami hotel’s liquor license
March 14, 2023
For customer support issues contact
support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to
corrections@rawstory.com.
Stories Chosen For You
Arizona GOP lawmakers are continuing to promote legislation targeting drag shows, while insisting that their proposals aren’t actually about drag shows at all.
During a House Judiciary Committee meeting on Wednesday, Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, said that the descriptions of Senate Bill 1698 that he read from the “liberal media” were much different than his interpretation of the bill.
“Where are the drag queens?” Kolodin asked. “All this bill does is prohibit parents from taking their kids to a strip club or sex show.”
Kolodin failed to mention that the bill previously included multiple references to drag shows, but that the term was removed from the bill on March 2 when the Senate debated the bill.
“Let’s not pretend that this is something the liberal media made up,” retorted Rep. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix.
In the bill’s original form, it added “drag shows or establishments that host drag shows” to the state’s definition of adult-oriented businesses and included a detailed description of what its authors considered a drag show. The Senate amendment replaced “drag shows” with “sexually explicit performances,” which the bill defines as having “the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires or appeal to the prurient interest.”
In its current form, SB1698 would mean a felony charge and possible sex offender status for parents who allow their children to watch adult-oriented performances or allow them to be in a building where an adult-oriented performance is happening.
Ortiz accused some of the Republicans on the committee of spreading misinformation that makes it seem as though it’s not already illegal to take a minor to a strip club.
State law has long said that it is a felony in Arizona to take a child to a strip club or a sex show. It’s also illegal for a strip club to allow a minor inside.
Critics of the bill, like Lisa Bivens of Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, said that the vagueness of the proposed law was problematic, since proving a performer’s intent to appeal to prurient interests would sometimes be difficult for a parent to know beforehand or to prove in court afterward.
And the legislation could have unintended consequences, Bivens said, pointing out that a parent could unknowingly take their child to an art show that contains nudity or partial nudity and then be charged with a felony for doing so.
Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for the ACLU, said that the proposal was a way for the legislators to substitute their own puritanical values for those of parents. And in doing so, they’d be limiting performers’ First Amendment rights to expression, she said.
Ari Bradshaw, a conservative activist, said that he supported the bill, but believes there should be an exception for art.
“I don’t think anyone here wants to see any child sexualized,” he said.
Rep. Cory McGarr, R-Marana, said the bill shouldn’t be necessary, but American culture is pushing “hypersexualized material” on children.
“You don’t have a First Amendment right to take a child to a strip club,” he said, ignoring the existing laws making that illegal.
The Judiciary Committee approved the bill 5-3 along party lines. It will next go to the full House of Representatives for consideration.
Also on Wednesday, the House Government Committee approved Senate Bill 1026, which would prohibit any entity that receives government funding from hosting drag events aimed at minors, even if the event is privately funded. Entities that violate the law would risk losing state funding for three years.
“In my opinion, drag shows are for adults,” said Tucson Republican Rep. Rachel Jones, who voted for the bill.
This bill is part of a movement from conservatives across the nation to target events like drag queen story hours, which are typically meant to be family-friendly and LGBTQ-inclusive events to promote childhood literacy.
In February, a drag queen story hour scheduled at the LGBTQ-friendly Brick Road Coffee in Tempe was temporarily halted after a bomb threat.
And a drag story hour scheduled for March 25 at Bookmans Entertainment Exchange in Tucson has been postponed and relocated after the event was targeted by a church, as well as a local chapter of the far-right extremist group the Proud Boys, according to a statement from Bookmans. Targeting from those groups “raised the specter of potential violence,” making the event unfeasible, Bookmans said in the statement.
If people want to live a certain lifestyle, said Goodyear Republican Rep. Steve Montenegro, that’s their own business — but he doesn’t want public tax money going to indoctrinate children or advocate for that lifestyle.
Republican Sen. John Kavanagh, of Fountain Hills, argued against claims from some detractors that the bill would stop schools and libraries from hosting some performances of Shakespearean plays.
“Shakespeare is not drag,” Kavanagh said. “That’s just not true.”
When William Shakespeare was alive and publishing plays, women were not allowed to perform on stage, so the female characters were played by men dressed as women. Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night” features a cross-dressing heroine.
Kavanagh also said that claims that this bill would outlaw any transgender person from reading to children were “outrageous.”
“Somebody who’s a transgender person who’s just reading like a regular person is not doing a drag show,” Kavanagh said.
The bill’s language describes a drag show as featuring performers who dress in clothes opposite of their gender at birth to “exaggerate gender signifiers and roles.”
Kavanagh added that parents were free to take their kids to drag shows if they want, but that they should be ashamed to do so.
Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Georgia lawmakers poised to create oversight panel with power to remove local prosecutors
March 22, 2023
Momentum continues to build in the Georgia Legislature for a proposed law that could allow state officials to remove district attorneys from office for misconduct.
The Georgia House moved a step closer this week to establishing a prosecutor oversight commission, the first of its kind in Georgia, as the House Judiciary Committee passed Senate Bill 92 along a party line vote on Wednesday.
The Republican-backed bill is now set to go before the gatekeeping House Rules Committee, which determines which bills can make it to the floor for a vote. The 2023 legislative session ends on March 29.
Sen. Randy Robertson, a Catuala Republican, said the measure aims to hold local prosecutors accountable in a similar manner to judges, who are subject to investigation by the state’s Judicial Qualifications Commission. Georgia sets a high bar for police officer’s conduct, which results in more officers being decertified than in any other state.
“The criminal justice system is under oversight whether you’re a deputy sheriff working in a rural county or you’re a police officer with the Atlanta Police Department,” Robertson said. “There are multiple layers of opportunities to have your actions reviewed, studied and corrected.”
“I’ve watched judges who chose to do things their way as opposed to the way things were supposed to be done who retire and leave the job because they failed to meet that high standard,” Robertson said.
In 2020, Democrats proposed the creation of a similar committee following allegations of improper handling and eventual criminal indictment of the local prosecutor who initially took charge of investigating the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery, a 23-year-old Black man killed by three white men while jogging in a Brunswick-area neighborhood.
At the time, Republicans dismissed Democrats’ proposals to form a new commission that would weed out problematic prosecutors or at least dole out some form of punishment to district attorneys who didn’t meet the proposed standards.
In recent months, some Democratic legislators and prosecutors have questioned whether Republican legislators’ support of more prosecutorial oversight is related to political reasons instead of serious concerns about district attorneys abusing their authority.
They point to the fact that in the 2020 election, a record number of non-white women were elected as district attorneys in Georgia.
About two dozen of Georgia’s district attorneys and solicitors have signed a letter supporting the oversight commission. The proposal, however, is opposed by the state’s prosecuting and district attorney associations, which complain a state oversight panel could unfairly target local prosecutors for making independent judgments about which types of cases should be pursued.
Opponents also argue that the legislation is unnecessary since voters already can decide whether district attorneys are re-elected and prosecutors who break the law face criminal charges.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is pursuing a probe of former President Donald Trump, has complained the legislation is an overreaction.
Similarly, House Bill 231 establishes a new board which determines the consequences of prosecutors declining to prosecute low-level offenses.
A district attorney or solicitor general could be removed under the proposed law for willful and prejudicial misconduct as well as physical or mental disabilities that inhibit their ability to prosecute cases.
Under HB 231, the Georgia Supreme Court would appoint a five-member investigative panel and three-member hearing panel. Robertson’s plan calls for Georgia’s legislative leadership to choose the members.
Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com. Follow Georgia Recorder on Facebook and Twitter.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
'This may be the final blow': Political analysts sound the alarm that the Trump lawyer testimony will be damaging
March 22, 2023
In response to the reports that the appeals court ruled against Donald Trump in an effort to stop one of his lawyers from testifying in the documents scandal, political and legal analysts are sounding the alarm.
The news promoted former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann to note that the conversations with Trump and Cocran only protect private communications seeking legal advice, "NOT the facts client provided lawyer intended to be communicated to the government."
"Cannot emphasize enough how Corcoran's testimony vs. Trump on Espionage Act and obstruction may be the single greatest threat to him. Allegedly with notes and recording this may be the final blow," said Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin.
Legal analyst Allison Gill noted that it's hard to know the specifics on what is expected when it comes to the demands of Corcoran because the case is under seal.
IN OTHER NEWS: Rand Paul stunned by Moderna CEO: Less risk of myocarditis for people who take vaccine
Lawfare's Anna Bower also pointed out that "Corcoran isn't the only Trump attorney scheduled to testify before the Mar-a-Lago documents grand jury this week."
"Jennifer Little—one of Trump’s attorneys in the Fulton County probe—is also likely to testify this week," she added.
"As I've said, this evidence could be huge," said Los Angeles Times legal columnist Harry Litman. "Trump presumably will seek an emergency stay from Supreme Court. A justice might give a brief temporary one, but can't see 5 votes there. Meaning that quite likely in short order Corcoran -- and his documentary evidence -- are back in the [grand jury]."
"And, in any event," Weissmann also said, "if client provides false facts to counsel to provide to govt, that is a crime (obstruction and false statement to government), and crime-fraud exception applies. You can't commit a crime through a lawyer intermediary."
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}