King toes the line on SB43

On Saturday afternoon, Arkansas State Senator Bryan King sat down with the me to discuss his Yes vote on Senate Bill 43 that defines drag performance as an “adult-oriented” business.

Have you ever been to a drag show?

You know I never have. I know the situation has come up with Tootsie or Mrs. Doubtfire, I think those kinds of things are protected under the First Amendment. And I know one side has concerns on how far things go, they have a right to their concerns. I think in these things that there are First Amendment protections that will come into play that already are long-standing. I think a person walking down the street in drag is their First Amendment right. I think it will be up to the cities to say what is adult and what is not.

With social media changing how we take in information and changes the way politics and governance happen, do you think the bill is reactionary?

I think so. I don’t think there’s any question about that. Sometimes it comes down to there are first Amendment protections. I do think there are situations just like movie ratings and it’s about what are adult standards.

When bills are made out of swift reaction do you consider that good governance?

I guess it depends on the situation. This thing happens even in Second Amendment issues. Anymore today you can have 10 percent on something on social media, it’s driven, and on the other side 10 percent on the political spectrum is pushing another.

Again, do you believe this bill is good governance? Do you believe it is well written?

I believe it could be much more clearly defined. The other side of this, because it’s not clearly defined, it will give cities and their people the ability to say what is and what is not adult. On this issue what it’s going to be is the end-product. If it goes to a situation getting into somebody’s First Amendment rights, you would say no. If this is about what is adult, the language in the bill is not determining the outcome, it’ll be cities.

The bill uses the word ‘prurient’ as a defining word of how an act is considered a drag performance. Who gets to define that?

I think that’s the thing about this bill is with the language, I think that’s where cities can take the initiative and begin defining it. I don’t like the word prurient. Maybe a city is going to determine a Hooters situation… If you tried to put a Hooters in Green Forest or Holiday Island, I’d assume you’d get rancor. They have a right to determine that. I think the language, I can be wrong, but I think it’ll give allowances to people in Carroll County and cities because it doesn’t outline what it [prurient] is, it’s very broad. It’s going to give the opportunity, and if they don’t do something then it’ll be the local prosecutor and if they get into trading on First Amendment rights you have the federal courts they’ll have to go through.

You mentioned before that you felt the bill could have had better definition inside of it. If you feel that the bill should have been better written, why would you vote Yes on it?

I think local municipalities will be able to determine things. We’ll get back to good governance and let people govern closer to home. When I think of good governance, I think of letting local people decide as much as possible and allowing them their freedom.

Diversity in Eureka Springs is very close to locals’ hearts, including mine. I have enjoyed taking my children to the open park drag shows that happen where the artists perform music. Is that protected under First Amendment rights? Or does this bill say drag performance is no longer allowed?

From looking at what past rulings have been, it’s very possible there are First Amendment protections. I think if it’s an adult thing happening like a wet t-shirt contest those things can be rated the same as under the adult nature.

Who gets to define ‘prurient?’ Don’t cities already have that option? As an example, there are indecency laws in place, so why is there a need for a bill if that is already in place? Drag performances are already vetted by the Parks department and CAPC. Don’t cities already have a way to vet what is shown in public?

I think that goes back to social media where we have seen homosexual, transgender things happening, and some ‘situation’ happens there but in a democracy arena we get it thrown to us even if they haven’t happened here. You have where it’s reactionary the same way as in the Second Amendment. It used to be, most politics was local. If it wasn’t happening locally people didn’t think about it.

You’ve mentioned that if someone doesn’t want to go to a Mardi Gras Parade, go to a Christmas one. Even before this bill, didn’t we have that option? If a person doesn’t want to go to a drag performance, don’t go. Doesn’t this make the bill overkill? An overstep of what was already in place?

I think we do have that situation. You have situations now where cities can say to not have something in place. Cities have the right to choose what is adult and what isn’t, because it’s not clearly defined

Going to ES City Council and hearing many statements from drag performers, a lot of people’s concern is what is the state going to do? This is not the city deciding what a drag performance is, this is the state deciding what a drag performance is. How do you assuage people’s concerns that this is going to shut down performers who perform for children and that don’t have sexual content in their performances? As an example, a storytime in the park? Won’t the state say you can’t do this?

There’s not that language in the law. It doesn’t say who defines that. If it is to be prosecuted it will be done by a local prosecutor.

If someone reports to a state trooper that they feel someone in the park giving a drag performance is performing an ‘adult’ action as defined in this bill, is that not the state getting involved? Is that not the officer having to decide what is prurient?

It will go to the local prosecutor and will be decided by them. We are in a new area and because of social media there are situations out there that should not be for kids. I think as you go down these roads you go to areas that need to be defined. A good thing about good governance and our democracy is that we can see if there are unintended consequences. It’s one of those things that we’ll know more later. My thing, in this situation and in this bill, is to say there are certain things that we have to think about that are adult standards and that’s where the needle pointed for me. I think a burlesque situation in a heterosexual situation is adult, and a burlesque situation in a drag situation is adult. Neither are for children.

Do you feel this bill is going to affect the rights of transgender peoples? That’s a major concern in Eureka Springs.

I think it’s going to be the same situation, we’ll know more later. If a year from now if there’s somebody who feels it tramps on their First Amendment right they have the court system to go through.

If this bill is used to trample on First Amendment rights in your district, will you stand behind them?

If we have this situation, then as I sat and said in my comments to you, I do believe in First Amendment rights. I’d want to look at all the details just as I did with this bill. Let’s allow this thing to play out and see how it’s defined. We must start defining in every situation, what is adult and what is appropriate in front of kids. I do think there’s First Amendment protections and there is the court system.