Ohio Bill Could Define Drag as “Indecent Exposure”
Critics warn the measure’s broad language could be used to target drag shows, Pride events, and other public performances.
An Ohio bill pushed by Republicans would create a new criminal offense of “unlawful adult cabaret performances,” targeting what it deems “obscene” performances in public spaces where minors may be present.
Titled the “Indecent Exposure Modernization Act,” the measure defines an “adult cabaret” as venues such as nightclubs, bars, restaurants, or bottle clubs — regardless of whether they serve alcohol — that feature performers who “appear in a state of nudity or seminudity,” as well as live or recorded content depicting specific anatomical areas or sexual activity.
Such performances would be allowed only in designated adult cabarets and banned in public spaces or anywhere minors may be present.
The legislation also outlines criteria for what could be deemed illegal, including material considered age-inappropriate for minors — based on prevailing societal standards — that references sex or bodily functions, is intended to arouse an audience, and “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
The measure passed the Ohio House on a largely party-line vote of 63-32, with one Republican joining all Democrats in opposition.
Critics argue the measure is so vague it could be used to prosecute and shut down drag brunches, drag reading hours, Pride parades, and other public displays of gender-nonconformity.
But State Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania Township), a co-sponsor who has backed legislation restricting transgender rights and visibility, said the Indecent Exposure Modernization Act is not intended to outlaw drag performances altogether.
“The bill does not say drag queen performances are inherently obscene. I know other states have taken that approach; this bill does not do that,” Williams said during a hearing of the Ohio House Judiciary Committee, which advanced the measure to the full House for a vote. “The only thing that this bans is performers, including drag, that engage in obscene conduct.”
Williams pushed back on concerns that police or prosecutors could apply an overly broad definition of “obscene” or age-inappropriate content to target gender-nonconforming expression, arguing that all laws are ultimately subject to interpretation by law enforcement.
“Every statute known to man can be misappropriated by a law enforcement officer. We saw that time and time again during Jim Crow,” Williams, who is Black, said during the committee hearing.
Dwayne Steward, CEO and executive director of Equality Ohio, said that concern is exactly why the state’s top LGBTQ advocacy organization opposes the measure.
“In changing what ‘obscenity’ means, the bill would allow for conservative actors within the state of Ohio to use the bill as a weapon to police drag performers and transgender communities,” Steward told Metro Weekly, pointing to language singling out performers who dress in ways that don’t align with their assigned sex at birth.
“An overzealous prosecutor or law enforcement officer could see a group of kids, whom they consider to be dressed provocatively, on the way to Pride, for example, and decide that they want to police that group, based on their own ideology. And based on the language in this bill, they could. That’s our main problem,” Steward said.
“The bill also extends well beyond drag performers and trans communities because it changes the definition of indecent exposure. Typically, you can’t show your genitals or private parts in public. That’s clearly obscene. But by changing the language in the statute from ‘private parts’ to ‘private area,’ it means that criminal liability is no longer dependent on actual exposure,” he added. “That means you could see someone dressed in a sports bra and prosecute them because you believe they’re showing too much of their private area, even though it’s covered.”
Steward said the lack of Republican opposition reflects a broader fixation among conservative lawmakers on curbing or regulating transgender visibility.
“Sadly, this is the politics of conservative factions within Ohio, which is to truthfully oppress and erase LGBTQ — and specifically transgender — people from public life,” he said. “This has been seen in various bills over the past several years that attack a community that is less than one percent of the population. They’ve passed a bill to end gender-affirming care for trans youth, to ban trans folks from bathrooms on college campuses. … I’m not sure why this is their focus, but they have turned it into a culture war that’s unnecessary.”
Steward also said the measure could cost the state money if it is challenged in court.
“We definitely believe that there will be legal challenges if this passes into law, especially if there are overzealous prosecutors or law enforcement officers who try to shut down Prides across the state,” he said. “Even conservative politicians have said themselves that they expect there to be legal challenges. This bill is a direct violation of the First Amendment.”
Support Metro Weekly’s Journalism
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.