Bill Studenc: What a drag; legislation seeks to fix a problem that doesn't exist

May 7—I frequently find myself accused by the news media of saying or doing things that I haven't said or done. For example, past headlines have proclaimed "Bill proposes loosening restrictions on assault weapons" and "Bill calls for shorter wait times for teen drivers to get licenses."

Both of those statements are inherently incorrect. I actually think tighter restrictions on guns that are capable of inflicting mass carnage are needed, and I fear that less time behind the wheel with a provisional license will only result in more traffic accidents involving inexperienced teen drivers.

The most recent instance of the news media mischaracterizing my stance on an issue came during headlines last week blaring "Bill would ban drag shows in North Carolina." Why in the wide, wide world of sports would I do such a thing?

While I have no desire to go to a drag show, I don't want to deprive those who do want to attend a drag show of the right to do so.

Wait, what's that, you say? The aforementioned headlines in question aren't referring to your friendly neighborhood newspaper columnist, but to pieces of legislation known as "bills?" Suddenly, childhood memories of "Schoolhouse Rock" have come flooding back. "I am just a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill."

That's a relief, because a recently filed bill in the N.C. House of Representatives regarding drag shows is just the latest example of a knee-jerk reaction legislative attempt to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

House Bill 673, sponsored by N.C. Rep. Jeff Zenger (R-Forsyth) and titled "An Act to Clarify the Regulations on Adult Live Entertainment," would make it unlawful for a person to engage in adult live entertainment on public property or in the presence of an individual under the age of 18.

The bill defines "adult live entertainment" as "...a performance featuring topless dancers, exotic dancers, strippers or male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest."

While the legislation does not define "prurient interest," my handy, dandy dictionary tells me that prurient means "marked by, arousing or appealing to sexual desire" or "causing lust."

The bill also calls for anyone found guilty of violating the law, if it were to take effect, to face a Class 1A misdemeanor for a first offense; Class 1A is the most serious type of misdemeanor including such offenses as child abuse, sexual battery, stalking, assault on a female and assault with a deadly weapon. Subsequent violations of the law would lead to Class 1 felony charges.

The bill is a response to complaints arising after a performer was captured on video straddling a high school student during a drag show at a Pride event at Forsyth Technical Community College in March. Winston-Salem and Forsyth County Schools Early College and Middle College also are based at Forsyth Tech, and students as young as 14 may have been exposed to the performance.

Was it appropriate for a female impersonator to gyrate over an underaged high school student during a campus event? No. Do we need vague legislation that would possibly make criminals of drag queens and drag kings? Also no.

As the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. In the case of HB 673, the devil is in the lack of details. Without clearcut definitions of what is considered prurient and what is considered a public performance, the legislation would be unenforceable.

And who gets to decide what counts as prurient and what does not? One person's harmless bit of dress-up with make-up is another person's prurient.

If the bill becomes law, does that mean an end to public showings of such classic movies as "Tootsie," "Mrs. Doubtfire" and "Some Like it Hot?" What about poor Martin Lawrence, who made a career out of playing an elderly woman in the "Big Mama's House" series? Will rock band Twister Sister no longer be allowed to perform in the Tar Heel State?

Yes, I know that these pop culture moments likely aren't what the Forsyth legislator had in mind when drafting his bill, but without more specificity, who is to say where it might end?

In reality, I suspect the legislation has less to do with "protecting the children" than it does with the anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and manufactured outrage over non-issues that have become all-too-common in today's culture war-fueled political environment.

It all reminds me of a long-ago joke by comedian George Carlin, when he opined "I don't know why folks are so worried about pornography. I mean, how many people even own a pornograph?"

Bill Studenc, who began his career in journalism and communications at The Mountaineer in 1983, retired in January 2021 as chief communications officer at Western Carolina University. He now writes about life in the mountains of Western North Carolina.