The federal judge, who cited Dolly Parton in his ruling, found that the state law violated the First Amendment.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 178 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

In his ruling, Hittner mentioned Dolly Parton, whose death was announced Tuesday, and criticized the law’s definition of banning performances that “[appeal] to the prurient interest,” citing people who would chastise Parton “as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure.”

“There are ‘erotic’ elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12,” he wrote.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, a drag queen who performs under the name Brigitte Bandit, impersonates Parton in her performances. Bandit celebrated the ruling on social media Tuesday, posting a screenshot of the decision and captioning it, “Drag is free speech, bitch.” She announced she would also perform as Parton, who gave her a rhinestone guitar as a gift in 2023, at an Austin bar Saturday in her honor.

Even from the grave, Dolly is making the world a better place.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I don't think she's buried yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I dreamed I saw Dolly Parton last night

    Alive as you and me

    Says I, "But Dolly, you're 24 hrs dead"

    "I never died" says she

    "I never died" says she

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 101 points 2 months ago (38 children)

    If you think abortion is wrong, just don't have one.

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Gay marriage enters the chat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Right? If you aren't interested in a gay marriage it's incredibly easy to avoid entering into one. I've managed to go my entire life without being gay-married. Heck, I'm not gay-married right now! Yet despite what Fox News tells conservatives, there's no gay mafia threatening or intimidating me for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 2 months ago (24 children)
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Almost every person I know who thinks abortion is morally wrong also supports the death penalty and war for almost any reason and police violence. They only seem to care about unborn fetuses that are not 'alive' independently from the body they inhabit. And most think that the mother's life is fine as a fetus' collateral damage. Therefore I don't for a minute believe that many of those who profess to morally care about life/murder, really care about either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I do know Catholics who are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia; they strongly believe God should decide the beginning and end of anyone's life.

    Not saying they are right but they are consistent.

    I'm anti-abortion for myself, never had one never thought it was an ok thing. But I don't think laws should apply at all - the existing woman always matters more than the as yet unborn and I've met exactly one person ever who used abortion freely and as her birth control and she was crazy. It's such an edge case law is not the right answer.

    So in short I agree with if you don't think it's right don't do it. Don't try to control other people who aren't harming you. You don't walk in anyone else's shoes, you don't know their pain. If your friend is having an abortion when she wants the baby, but can't figure out how to manage tell her how you can HELP her, don't judge her.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    But the Bible is pro-choice. It says in multiple places that life begins at first breath, and has a ritual to force your wife to miscarry and lose her uterus if she cheated on you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    As an ex catholic, those ones are few and far between, and not in the better way. Opposition to capital punishment is something a lot of American Catholics hold as a "yeah the church says we're supposed to believe it" much like opposition to premarital sex

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    And the reply to every single one of those people is, "If you think abortion is wrong BECAUSE it is murder, then what are your feelings on the death penalty or war?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Because I would like you to be successful in debating this issue, I need to inform you:

    That's not a very good response. It will convince literally no one. It won't be convincing to the person you're debating. It won't be convincing to people who are observing the argument. It changes absolutely nothing.

    The only effective replies are the ones that force people to think deeply:

    • What makes this wrong, specifically?

    and then, ask them to explain even more deeply every time they respond. e.g., "killing an innocent person is wrong."

    • What makes something innocent? What makes something a person?

    If you can get them to at least admit that it's a gray area, you've won.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Good luck convincing such people of anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Most people can be convinced of something. I have a lot of debates, both in person and online, and I've gotten somewhat decent at it. I think the most important thing is setting a realistic goal.

    Did I convince a group of young earth creationists that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life? No I did not. Did I convince some of them that biologists aren't a part of a satanic conspiracy, and that they're just trying to come up with good explanations for the stuff they see? Yes, I think so.

    Did I convince a "pro-life" friend that abortion should be exclusively the host's decision? No I did not. Did I make them recognize that drawing the line on when abortion should or should not be allowed is harder than they had assumed, and that IF the government is going to draw that line, they should at least consult some medical experts? Yes, I think so.

    On some level it might feel like it's not enough... But there isn't anything better, so I'll take what I can get. Good luck out there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    It's not the gotcha you think it is. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, and the death penalty and war don't don't intentionally involve innocent people.

    It'd be like saying "oh, you oppose murder? What about self defence???"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    Death penalty is usually opposed because the person might be innocent. Just the ‘Don't Talk to the Police’ clip cites two different cases where policemen talked mentally ill people into incriminating themselves, which people were later exonerated by DNA evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Yeah, but it's not the reason Catholics and other Christians are supposed to oppose it. It's unnecessary killing, regardless of guilt. In defensive war it's one thing to kill, but a person you can stop from killing anyone? You're supposed to keep them in prison and try to help them change

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    It's a good reason to oppose the death penalty, but I don't think it makes it murder at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Murder is not defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, by either Merriam Webster, Wikipedia, American Heritage Dictionary, or Dictionary.com

    Not one definition anywhere has the word "innocent" in it.

    It is defined in one place as "The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." How we define "justification" is important. I would call most war, "recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life."

    Other places has it as "unlawful or unjustified killing of a person."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Is it really "most war," or is it one half of most wars?

    But sure, that's a fine definition. I think if you don't include "justified" the definition is clearly incomplete - and I don't think anyone who thinks about it would disagree, because it would contradict common usage so thoroughly.

    So now you get to argue that killing foetuses is justified. Good luck with that, I'm sure the definitional exercise will have convinced whomever you were talking to :/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    But being absolutely against murder doesn't end up with other people being murdered, so it's a terrible analogy that they are just allowed to get away with. If you stop doctors from "murdering" babies, then mothers die as a result, full stop. They don't even argue that point, they just don't care, so arguably, they're no better than the murderer in their own stupid analogy.

    All of this is a religious refusal to admit that biology is a nasty, difficult and ugly business and not the perfect product of their all-loving God, and it's just plain stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Don't like drugs? Dont use them.

    Dont like guns? Dont own any.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I mean, I agree - but this logic breaks down for those who believe that a fetus is alive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    People who believe that are illogical anyway

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 101 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 36 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It's unfair. They need to ban those because they want to go but don't want to be seen there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The "freedom" crowd always seems to be quite upset at other people's freedoms... 🤦

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I've never experienced a drag show against my will.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago*

    I have, but so what. I may not have always liked it, but it's really no different from sitting down at a bar and about an hour in a band comes in to do live music that you aren't there for and it's ruining your ability to have a conversation (also has happened to me). You just decide to roll with it or go somewhere else. It's some real whiny loser shit to try to ban people from engaging in art just because you dislike it.

    And yeah, drag shows starting at bars I'm already at is not uncommon because I typically stick to gay bars

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Fun story. My first wife wanted to dress me in drag, as at the time I was an absolute twink and she thought I would look amazing. So we did that. And I did look good. Although I'm already tall (194 cm) and was wearing 4 inch heels so I then became very tall. Anyway we went to a drag show and the performers dragged me up on stage and tried to get me to sing we are family with them. I did, although I can't hold a tune for shit. It was a ton of fun, but I've never done it again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 2 months ago

    It's sure is neat how many GOP "issues" boil down to not understanding consent.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 2 months ago

    Republicans scream "freedom" louder than anyone, but they prove consistently that it's just a slogan to them. Texas has outlawed gambling, marijuana, reproductive healthcare, gay marriage, and effectively outlawed porn. And they're all up in the business of trans and gay folks. And they shove their religion down your throat every chance they get. I don't think they understand the meaning of freedom.

  • source
  • [–] 64 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Conservatives want small government when it's stuff they want to do, and big government when they don't. In-groups to protect, out-groups to bind. Bad people. Cartoon villains.

    Glad this judge seems sensible.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago

    Bad people.

    That's why they're all so religious of the Christian persuasion. They forgive themselves, the in group, but not others, the out group, for whom they reserve Old Testament treatment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Conservatism consists of one principle, but not that one. It's literally just about preserving the status quo as they see it, and that includes the invisibility of minorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    It’s literally just about preserving the status quo as they see it

    Close. But not quite.

    It is about preserving the status quo as they think it should be; and that can change to be the opposite of what it was last week, if their information bubble convinces them it should change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago

    Just don't go

    🤯

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I've come to the conclusion that the people who are pushing for this type of legislation or rules have a deep seated homoerotic side to them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Having been to a drag show, it's really no different than a fashion show. More clothing, actually.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Also worth noting: when was the last time they complained about a burlesque show?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I assume those are 18 and up already, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Just like drag, burlesque often contains no nudity, if it had to be 18+, the beach is more revealing. Also keep in mind the anti-trans "protect the children" community are the same demographic that supports child pageants.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    It depends.

    Burlesque shows are not automatically 18+. There are all ages shows, 16+ shows, 18+ shows, and even 21+ shows (usually driven by the venue serving alcohol).

    Obviously the content can be a factor, and some will have an age recommendation due to language.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago

    It really is that fucking simple

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Excited for the Supreme Court to decide states have the power to impose dress codes on the entire population.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    They want it banned because they fucking love it and they can’t square it with their bigotry so banning it is the only way to make the gay thoughts go away

    It’s ok Texans you can reject your upbringing and be yourselves. The thoughts aren’t wrong, Pastor is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Incorrect. They want it banned so that they can arrest trans people under sex offenders laws then use that as an excuse to execute them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    This is correct. While some of them are ashamed of their own feelings/desires and want that banned so it isn't a temptation, the vast majority are going after this as a way to hurt people they want to hurt. Why they want to hurt them can be stem from many things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    You mean to tell me all of the republicans don’t have to go to drag shows? They can’t resist.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    In 2015, Paxton was indicted on state securities fraud charges relating to activities before taking office;[3] he pleaded not guilty. After Paxton fulfilled a pretrial agreement for restitution to the victims, ethics training, and community service, the charges were dismissed in 2025. In May 2023, Paxton was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives by a vote of 121–23, leading to his suspension.[4] The articles of impeachment included allegations that Paxton gave preferential treatment to a political donor who bribed him, misapplied public resources and made false statements against whistleblowers, obstructed justice in the securities fraud trial against him, and made false statements regarding his financial interests.[5][6][7] In September 2023, the Texas Senate voted 16–14 to acquit Paxton of all articles of impeachment, ending his suspension from office.[8][9]

    On July 28, 2015, a state grand jury indicted Paxton on three criminal charges:[271] two counts of securities fraud (a first-degree felony) and one count of failing to register with state securities regulators (a third-degree felony).[272][273] Paxton's indictment marked the first such criminal indictment of a Texas attorney general in thirty-two years since Texas attorney general Jim Mattox was indicted for bribery in 1983.[274] The complainants in the case are Joel Hochberg, a Florida businessman, and Byron Cook, a Republican and former member of the Texas House of Representatives.[275][276] Paxton and Cook were former friends and roommates while serving together in the Texas House.[276] Three special prosecutors were trying the state's case.[277]

    There's even more on Wikipedia. What a fucking crook

    -Wikipedia

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago*

    How can you expect these bigots to stay away? What kind of solution is that? Why wont someone think of hate and intolerance for once.

    /s

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Can't wait for this to get appealed to the supreme court for a 5-4 bullshit decision

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Nah, this one doesn't actually alter any power structures, so Drunky McAssboof and the Handmaiden can vote pro 1st amendment to show how "fair and balanced" the court is. Then when Dumpy Shitzenpantz brings a suit claiming midterm votes against the GOP is a terrorist threat to the country they'll all support making other parties illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It's amazing that anybody would waste time trying to ban this or think a ban could withstand the inevitable challenge.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Fucking good.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Free speech motherfuckers! It's a double edged sword, but by fuck does it have both edges

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Reminds me of that one South Park episode.

    "If you don't like America you can get out."

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago
    [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Does this only apply to Texas, because Ohio has a similar thing the are doing “for the children”

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Maxwell Q. Klinger approves this decision.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Gigachad response

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    85 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    7 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    5 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    1 comment in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    1 comment in c/usa@midwest.social view that post