When Texas A&M University declared its administrative mission protected when drag shows were prohibited on campus. 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 unpleasant conduct based on sex. The committee found that A&, M venues ‘ ability to network drag shows “inconsistent with the System’s mission and core values” because they “involve sexualized, vulgar, or sexual conduct” and “involve behavior that “demeans women.”  ,
However, A& M was sued by the mistaken “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 after the university had canceled 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 school to hold bring indicates while the case 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” appearances featured scantily clad men in erotic offers as women. The future event was scheduled to take place on March 27 in a school theater at the time of release.  ,
Rosenthal agreed with FIRE’s claim that the vulgar carry show is merely “expressive conduct.” The First Amendment protects obvious bring shows, according to FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney J. T. Morris, as well as” a political protest or a Christmas parade.” However, Christmas contests don’t provide an audience with intimate depictions.  ,
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. However, the Founders never believed it protected sex, lewdness, or obscenity. Public immorality and porn were common law offences that broke the laws enacted by the framers and first Americans, as Dusty Deevers wrote for The Federalist.
According to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature,” courts in the first state and slave intervals” thought that “obscenity threatened to destroy the government’s personality.” The reduction of public morality is typically combined with 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 college would have to host obvious physical performances for just a long train of abuses in criminal interpretation.  ,
Hearth has a history of protecting explicit information. 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 industry’s challenge of Texas’s law to protect kids from unambiguous online content. In the end, FIRE contends that the First Amendment protects free talk from obscene content.
This profound assumption has been made possible by weak administrative precedent. In the 1973 event Miller v. California, the Supreme Court passed obscure 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 overrode a federal rule that protected adolescents from video online in Ashcroft v. ACLU in 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 defense, 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 degree from Hillsdale College, worked as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan grew up in rural Michigan but is originally from Central Oregon.
