Republican lawmakers in the US are leaning into outdated definitions of obscenity to outlaw drag and ban books too

Republican lawmakers in the US are leaning into outdated definitions of obscenity to outlaw drag and ban books too

For five months this year, homosexuality was prohibited in a Tennessee college town.

In June, the city council of Murfreesboro enacted an ordinance outlawing “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct”. The rule did not explicitly mention homosexuality, but LGBTQ+ people in the town quickly realized that the ordinance references 21-72 of the city code, which categorizes homosexuality as an act of indecent sexual conduct.

The ordinance was essentially a covert ban on LGBTQ+ existence.

Erin Reed, one of the first and only national journalists to cover the ordinance earlier this year, noted that Murfreesboro isn’t “the only community that has these old archaic bits of code that target homosexuality”.

Earlier this month, following a legal challenge from the ACLU of Tennessee, the government of Murfreesboro removed “homosexuality” from the list of acts defined as “public indecency” by the city code. The small victory came after officials repeatedly refused to issue permits for the BoroPride Festival, citing the new ordinance.

  • @[email protected]
    11•6 months ago

    Wasn’t this whole thing debunked as an obscure definition that was never enforced, and was changed weeks before a story about it ever made headlines?

    Earlier this month, following a legal challenge from the ACLU of Tennessee, the government of Murfreesboro removed “homosexuality” from the list

    Yep.

    I’m cancelling my monthly donation to the guardian lmao. Ragebaiting like some fox news opinion piece.

    • @sunbytes
      11•6 months ago

      Part of the authoritarian playbook is selective enforcement.

      So it’s still scary, even if it never got used.

    • Heresy_generator
      10•6 months ago

      In June, the city council of Murfreesboro enacted an ordinance outlawing “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct”. The rule did not explicitly mention homosexuality, but LGBTQ+ people in the town quickly realized that the ordinance references 21-72 of the city code, which categorizes homosexuality as an act of indecent sexual conduct.
      …
      Earlier this month, following a legal challenge from the ACLU of Tennessee, the government of Murfreesboro removed “homosexuality” from the list of acts defined as “public indecency” by the city code. The small victory came after officials repeatedly refused to issue permits for the BoroPride Festival, citing the new ordinance.

      So the city was using the ordinance to shut down a pride festival based on the new ordinance’s reference to 21-72 of the city code until the ACLU got involved and they backed down rather than pay for lawyers to fight a battle they knew they couldn’t win in the courts.

      Murfreesboro made public homosexuality illegal and was enforcing it until the ACLU slapped them around. How is that “debunked”? You don’t think it’s newsworthy that a city government outlawed public homosexuality just because they rescinded it when challenged?

      • @[email protected]
        2•6 months ago

        https://www.facebook.com/boropridetn this is the pride organisers page. On the 2019 event listing they state it is the 4th annual event. They’ve been running pride events in the town every year for nearly a decade. The event occurred again this year, making it the 9th consecutive year.

        I don’t see gays being oppressed, I see dumb small town officials thinking they can make weird laws that would never hold up in court and getting immediately corrected.

        It’s more shocking to me that there was apparently no law that referenced that definition of “sexual conduct” until now that would have highlighted this bigoted part of the city code thats been there for years.

        Was fucking in the street legal? Why is it only on the 9th year of the event that they are getting push back? How many officials were involved in this law passing? Questions the guardian isn’t looking at because they don’t give a fuck, or the answers aren’t ragebait enough.

    • @dragonflyteaparty
      3•6 months ago

      It’s the fact that it had to be removed… And that there are plenty of people in government, including the speaker of the house, who actually want it to be illegal to be gay.