An attempt to ban drag shows or limit adult entertainment? Bristol resident makes his case

BRISTOL – Robert Botelho insisted his petition to amend the legal definition of “adult entertainment” in Bristol’s town ordinance had absolutely nothing to do with drag shows. The majority of the Town Council, many members of the large public audience at Wednesday night’s council meeting and the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU weren’t buying it.

After Botelho presented his case, speaking for about four minutes on the need for Bristol to adopt "a more stringent and modern regulatory definition” of  the phrase “adult entertainment” in order to avoid “magnetizing or attracting adult-only entertainment businesses to seek presence in Bristol” which he said would have detrimental effects on taxpayers including but not limited to increased criminal activity, sexual assault, sex trafficking and prostitution, reduced property values, reduced business prosperity and a reversal of the gains made by Bristol’s community policing policies, Town Councilor Timothy Sweeney got right to the point:

“Mr. Botelho, would drag shows fall under this definition of adult entertainment that you’ve put before us today?”

Botelho replied that would be up to the council to decide. Sweeney then turned to the town solicitor and asked for her opinion on whether Botelho’s proposed definition would be overly restrictive.

“The town can legally regulate adult entertainment through zoning, as we do, as the definition in our current ordinance reflects," Town Solicitor Amy Goins explained. "But because of First Amendment concerns, we have to be very specific about what is and isn’t prohibited, and that’s what the current definition does.”

She said the council could refer the amendment to the solicitor’s office for a written opinion, but also offered a verbal rendering of what her written opinion would look like:

“The current definition does not need to be amended. Moreover, the proposed definition would be unconstitutionally vague…It’s up to you what you want to do with it – my recommendation is that no action needs to be taken.”

More:A drag show, a protest and a line of guns: How the battle over one issue is tearing at America

Sweeney made a motion to table the proposed amendment indefinitely, citing “a chilling effect on First Amendment rights,” but other councilors recommended placing the proposed amendment on file rather than tabling it in order to get the written legal opinion and operate from a standpoint of solid legal ground.

Town Councilor Aaron Ley was blunt in his assessment of the proposed amendment.

“I think everyone knows what this is about," Ley said. "This is about a ban on drag shows...It’s especially troubling that proposals like this are coming before us when there’s violence against drag performers in this country, and it’s on the heels of mass violence that occurred in Colorado when multiple people were killed and multiple people were injured. Some people in this audience right here are never going to be able to walk into a nightclub again without looking over their shoulders.”

Ley and Council Vice Chairwoman Mary Parella both made comments indicating their belief that Botelho’s proposal came in response to a recent drag event at a local brewery which occurred in February, something Parella found baffling because she doesn’t consider a drag show to be “adult entertainment” in the sexualized sense of the legal definition being discussed.

Botelho responded that he had filed his proposal on Feb. 2, well before the event took place on Feb. 11. The event was advertised in Pivotal Brewery Facebook posts on Jan. 24, Jan. 27 and Feb. 1, but Botelho told The Daily News he had never seen any advertisements for drag events in Bristol and his proposal was unrelated.

He cited sex shops and stores selling pornographic materials as examples of the type of business he was trying to provide a regulatory framework to limit, and said his proposal would merely mirror the definition of “adult entertainment” found in the ordinances of neighboring towns like Warren.

Botelho, both in a rebuttal to Ley during the meeting which got so heated it drew a rebuke from Town Council President Nathan Calouro and in an exclusive comment to the Newport Daily News after the meeting, said Ley and the rest of the council had intentionally misconstrued his intent.

“The opinion the solicitor provided would not provide any type of regulation for a company wanting to come in and put sex video booths in downtown Bristol. They would not be able to regulate sex shops, or novelty stores, or any of those type of activities,” Botelho told The Daily News. “They’re completely missing the intent, with the sole purpose on what their perceived notion of protecting drag shows, which was never even mentioned. It’s clearly an assumption, and an inaccurate one at that, and to be quite honest with you, is leaning towards slander.”

Botelho also claimed at the meeting and to The Daily News afterward that the Town Council had leaked his name, address and petition to social media in the lead-up to the meeting in order to build public opposition to it, and that he had received threatening phone calls and threatening messages on social media as a result.

“Absolutely not," Botelho said when asked if he would have a problem with future drag events in town. "Again, I leave that to the leadership to govern and regulate the parameters of those definitions. As my civic duty, I just brought the opportunity to my community to my community leaders to align with our neighboring communities, and the fact that they are attacking such a – I would say civil service – demonstrates the level of partiality in which Mr. Ley and other members of the Town Council have publicly displayed this evening.”

This article originally appeared on Newport Daily News: Bristol adult entertainment petition seen as attempt to ban drag shows