When Texas A&, M University declared its administrative vision invalid, it made a crucial move to protect its institution. However, a’free talk ‘ movement was sued, and then a judge has ordered the school to network these obvious trans sex shows.  ,
In a Feb. 28 resolution, the university’s board of governors acknowledged that “rag show events are likely to produce or lead to a hostile environment for women” and that “unwelcome and honestly offensive conduct based on sex. The board determined that it “inconsistent with the System’s vision and core values” for A&, M venues to sponsor drag shows because drag shows “involve feminized, rude, or sexual conduct, and include conduct that demeans women.”  ,
However, A& M was sued by the misplaced “free speech” organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to make them host these vulgar sex shows. Due to the school’s restrictions, Hearth sued on behalf of the dramatic student organization Queer Empowerment Council earlier this month to cancel the future performance of” Draggieland.” On March 24, federal prosecutor Lee Rosenthal for the U.S. Southern District of Texas imposed an order that would require the class to host drag shows while the situation is pending.  ,
The Queer Empowerment Council stated in a FIRE media release that” this is yet another example of the tenacity of queer joy, as it is an irresistible force despite those who want it to be destroyed.”  ,
Rosenthal particularly made A&, M to number” Draggieland,” which she praised as” skilfully named.” Previous” Draggieland” shows featured scantily clad men performing as women in physical offers. The future event was scheduled for March 27th in a university theatre at the time of release.  ,
Rosenthal agreed, and FIRE claimed the vulgar drag show is essentially “expressive conduct.” The First Amendment, according to older lawyer J. T. Morris, who supervises top counsel for FIRE, covers “political rallies or Christmas pageants” in equal measure. However, Christmas contests don’t show sexual scenarios to the market.  ,
According to its protections for church, speech, press, council, and complaint, the First Amendment evidently protects freedom of conscience and freedom to engage in open discussion. The Founders, however, never believed it to guard against sex, naughtiness, or obscenity. Public immorality and nudity were widespread law acts that were infringed upon by the architects and first Americans, as Sandy Deevers wrote for The Federalist.
According to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature,” courts in the first state and slave periods” thought that “obscenity threatened to destroy the world’s personality.” The decline of public morality is typically accompanied by that of people pleasure, and the public Liberty did not long endure the total exclusion of morals, according to Samuel Adams in the Second Continental Congress. A taxpayer-funded universities would need to network explicit sexual shows if there were only a long train of judicial interpretation injustices.  ,
Hearth has a history of standing up for unambiguous language. The party fought West Texas A&, M University’s restrictions on drag shows in 2023, which a federal prosecutor upheld, holding that the shows constitute” gendered conduct.” Additionally, FIRE filed an amicus brief in 2024 to support the video company’s issue of Texas ‘ online porn law to protect children from explicit content. In the end, FIRE contends that the First Amendment protects free talk from offensive content.
This profound assumption has been made possible by weak criminal precedent. In Miller v. California from 1973, the Supreme Court passed ambiguous criteria for determining “obscenity.” The Supreme Court cited Miller in 2002 to overturn a federal ban on content that” seems to be” or” contains the impression” of child porn, arguing that it would violate a” significant universe of speech.” Additionally, the Supreme Court overturned a national requirement to protect minors from video online in Ashcroft v. ACLU from 2004.
Several federal courts have been attempting to impose control over President Donald Trump’s administration, including a district judge trying to stop him from deporting illegal immigrants to El Salvador and a circuit determine requiring him to stay trans-identification personnel in the military, citing the music Hamilton, as The Federalist originally reported. Rosenthal’s injunction against A&, M is yet another illustration of judges acting on weak precedent and engaging in bench activism.  ,
The staff writer for election integrity is Logan Washburn. He is a The College Fix spring 2025 fellow. He received his journalism from Hillsdale College, worked as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has appeared in publications like The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is originally from Central Oregon, but he now resides in rural Michigan.
