“The court concludes that the AEA fails strict scrutiny review,” the ruling said. The federal judge said the AEA was passed for the “impermissible purpose of chilling constitutionally-protected speech”, and the “secondary effects doctrine does not save it from strict scrutiny review”. “The AEA is substantially over-broad because it applies to public property or ‘anywhere’ a minor could be present.” Parker added the anti-drag law is a “content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech”. “The AEA’s ‘harmful to minors’ standard applies to minors of all ages, so it fails to provide fair notice of what is prohibited, and it encourages discriminatory enforcement,” the judge wrote. In the new 70-page ruling on Friday (2 June), Parker said the court concluded Tennessee’s drag ban is “both unconstitutionally vague and substantially over-broad”. The group argued drag is an art form and that the AEA was unconstitutional under the #FirstAmendment. The decision came after #FriendsofGeorge’s, a #Memphis-based #LGBTQ+ #theatre group, filed a federal lawsuit against #Shelb圜ounty district attorney Steve Mulroy and the state. But judge #ThomasParker, a nominee of former president #DonaldTrump, passed a temporary injunction to block the law from being enacted. #Tennessee’s oppressive #AdultEntertainmentAct (AEA) – the first #antidrag bill to pass through a US state legislature and be signed into law – was meant to be put into effect in April, which would have prevented #dragperformances from being allowed anywhere a minor might see them.
0 kommentar(er)
