A federal judge in Texas has stopped the state’s ban on drag performances, which was scheduled to go into place Friday, enforcing a temporary injunction on the measure in a win for LGBTQ rights adv…

A federal judge in Texas has stopped the state’s ban on drag performances, which was scheduled to go into place Friday, enforcing a temporary injunction on the measure in a win for LGBTQ rights advocates.

A group of drag performance groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas, filed a suit against the state early this month claiming that the law is overly broad and infringes on their freedom of speech.

“The Court finds there is a substantial likelihood that S.B. 12 as drafted violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution under one or more of the legal theories put forward by the Plaintiffs,” District Judge David Hittner wrote in his opinion Thursday.

  • SaintWacko@midwest.socialEnglish
    49·
    10 months ago

    You know, there’s that term “vexatious litigant” for someone who keeps bringing frivolous and invalid lawsuits. We need something similar for lawmakers.

    • radix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      10 months ago

      I’ve been dreaming about a website where every overturned law is listed, cross-referencing the lawmaker(s) who sponsored it and those who voted for/against it.

      Every elected official would get a score that says how much they know and care about the Constitution.

      • geosoco@kbin.socialOP
        13·
        10 months ago

        would be super nice to have, especially if we could aggregate stats around how much time was spent on each of these bills (eg. debate time, etc).

        Sadly, I suspect that most people wouldn’t care. They could likely turn these into a badge of honor saying they’re fighting against the deep state or whatever crazy nonsense people believe in now.

  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    21·
    10 months ago

    I live in Texas and was considering wearing dresses to work just to see what the definition of “sexually explicit performance” would be.

  • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
    18·
    10 months ago

    Being able to dress the way you want as long as you don’t endanger anyone is clearly free speech. How these idiot laws are not thrown out of every court is ridiculous at best.

    • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social
      7·
      10 months ago

      They aren’t intended to stand up in court. They are performative legislation intended to show their constituents they’re doing something but those dastardly activist libbrul judges keep legislating from the bench!

  • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zipEnglish
    63·
    10 months ago

    It’s weird, I can’t find the right to do this in my copy of the Constitution anywhere, but it does imply I can express myself how I choose…