• AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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!

    • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.