Critics sued the state, saying it violated the First Amendment.

And taxpayer dollars, which Republicans claim to be such responsible stewards of, are being wasted to defend lawsuits like this.

1A baybee

Ya think?

This is the best summary I could come up with:

U.S. District Judge David Hittner found Senate Bill 12 “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.” The struck-down law prohibited any performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children.

“It is not unreasonable to read SB 12 and conclude that activities such as cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences could possibly become a civil or criminal violation.”

While SB 12 was originally billed as legislation that would prevent children from seeing drag shows, the final version did not directly reference people dressing as the opposite gender.

In Tuesday's 56-page ruling, Hittner noted a survey of court decisions "reveals little divergence from the opinion that drag performances are expressive content that is afforded First Amendment protection."

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said that West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler acted within his authority when he canceled a campus drag show.

"Today’s ruling is a celebration for the LGBTQ community and those who support free expression in the Lone Star State," GLAAD President and Chief Executive Officer Sarah Kate Ellis.

The original article contains 796 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

When you think about it, the cons sure are creepy weirdos - obsessed with things like this so very, very much. Wonder why?

It's a bit tiring that every single infringement on people's rights to exist has to be combatted via 1A because the only thing that trumps dAsTaRdLy BeHaViOr In FrOnT oF cHiLdReN is free speech.

Is that literally the only framework US law sees? Can't it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they're hateful bigots?