*This was originally published by the Des Moines Register.

Exposing minors to an “obscene performance” would be a crime under a bill winding through the Iowa Senate that critics fear could discourage drag shows and spur lawsuits against venues offering LGBTQ pride programming.

The legislation, Senate File 116, would make knowingly exposing anyone younger than 18 to such a performance an aggravated misdemeanor, as well as knowingly selling a ticket or admitting a minor to a venue where such a performance is held.

Similar to legislation that was introduced but did not pass last year, the bill that advanced out of subcommittee Wednesday defines “obscene performance” as one that exposes genitals, invokes sexual acts or “appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive.”

“I brought this bill forward because I had constituents complain to me about performances that, if not meeting the definition of obscenity in our law, at least approach that definition, and concerned about this in our communities and the exposure of minors to it,” said Sen. Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville, who was part of a group of GOP lawmakers who introduced the legislation.

Critics argue the bill would encourage frivolous lawsuits

Keenan Crow, policy and advocacy director for One Iowa, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization, raised concerns with a provision establishing a private civil cause of action allowing parents of minor children to sue to determine whether something is obscene.

The bill states “a cause of action may be brought against any person that has knowingly disseminated or exhibited obscene material to the minor or who engaged in or caused or allowed a person to knowingly engage in an obscene performance in the presence of the minor.” It sets the minimum award of damages at $10,000.

While drag shows are not explicitly labeled in the bill as obscene performances, those opposed to the legislation fear it would target drag performances.

“What we are doing is we are allowing parents to target these venues for SLAPP suits, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which are not designed to actually win the suit,” Crow said. “They are designed to make venues spend money and to reconsider hosting drag events entirely, lest they be sued on the off chance that it meets the obscenity definition, which obviously Drag Story Time does not.”

Drag Story Time events are sometimes held at libraries or other venues where drag performers read stories to children. In recent years, the events have increasingly been at the center of a larger GOP-led effort to restrict public drag events as conservative critics suggest they “sexualize” children.

Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said she worried the provision would incentivize frivolous lawsuits.

“This bill, as written, could encourage potential frivolous or bad actors to shake down local governments and private businesses, and that’s the taxpayer on the hook,” said Weiner, who opposed the bill.

Elizabeth Hall, a local trans woman, said bills targeting the LGBTQ population create “an aura of fear” among trans people that has pushed those she knows into psychiatric care.

“We fear for our communities,” Hall said. “We fear for our lives, and even if the particulars of how this bill would come into effect aren’t necessarily like that extreme, that fear still has a tangible effect on our lives and has caused so many people that I know to reach ends that I fear have continued to lead to detrimental effects.”

Supporters say the bill ensures performances shown to minors are ‘age appropriate’

Ryan Benn, a lobbyist for the conservative religious group The Family Leader, said the group supported the law because obscene materials that may be illegal to show children in movies or other material are not illegal to perform.

“I think it fixes that loophole,” Benn said.

Sen. Jeff Taylor, R-Sioux Center, said he would like to see a more clear definition of a “performance,” but overall obscenity is rarely prosecuted.

“In general, obscenity does not have constitutional protection in terms of freedom of speech,” Taylor said. “Something that’s obscene is, by definition, not protected by the First Amendment, and that’s regardless whether you’re sharing that with adults or with children. But to me, especially in the case of children, I feel like this is appropriate.”

Sen. Cherielynn Westrich, R-Ottumwa, said she supported the bill to protect children from obscenities.

“I think that what the one thing that we all in this room have agreed on is that we need to protect children from those sort of obscene or performances that are sexual in nature,” Westrich said.

Bill would repeal exemptions for public institutions

Melissa Peterson, with the Iowa State Education Association, said the group opposed the bill, especially a proposal to repeal an Iowa code section that allows minors to access appropriate material for educational purposes, at art exhibitions or in public libraries.

She said Senate File 496, the 2023 state law that requires school staff to remove books depicting sex acts, already sought to establish what content was age appropriate by existing obscenity standards.

“We worked closely together in a compromised fashion to come with what we thought would be considered age appropriate, and we would really like to see that exemption maintained for public institutions that are public spaces,” Peterson said.

Weiner also opposed repealing the exemption for public institutions.

“To repeal it is in some ways to admit that this bill really isn’t about obscenity,” Weiner said.