On March 2, 2023 Bill Lee, Governor of Tennessee, signed a bill banning drag shows in public spaces, a law that more than likely will force drag shows to go underground in the state. Other states are also considering similar measures. In arguing for the justification for this law, State Rep. Jack Johnson, a Republican and co-sponsor of the bill claimed: "We're protecting kids and families and parents who want to be able to take their kids to public places. We're not attacking anyone or targeting anyone."
Is this law justified according to Mill's views -- or any other view we have examined? Examine at least one justification for legal coercion and argue whether this law is justified under that principle.
According to Mill’s views, the premise that public drag shows don’t cause harm means they should not be illegal but using other premises of paternalism and offense to others from Dworkin and Feinberg, they will likely think the law unjustified for not causing severe enough of an offense or harm to anyone.
ReplyDeleteMill is the most permissible of the liberty of citizens, stating that the burden of proof is on the government to state how an action is harmful to others. He constantly repeats in On Liberty how “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” (Mill, pg. 14). Therefore, as public drag shows empirically cause no physical or mental harm, then he would state that banning public drag shows is unjustified oppression of public expression.
However, Feinberg and Dworkin allow for more nuance according to the reasoning given by Rep. Jack Johnson. Since Johnson presumes that public drag shows protect kids and families, the issue focuses more on the efficacy of paternalism and, more broadly, offense to others. Assuming that the government enforces paternalistic laws to save kids from harm, and public drag shows don’t cause harm, we can focus instead on paternalism related to Feinberg’s opinions on the “offense to others” principle. The principle itself explains that “the prevention of offensive conduct is properly the state’s business” (Feinberg, Pg. 1). In theory, if there were to be public drag shows that offend people, then those issues should be handled by the state. However, Feinberg takes a different approach on the concept. He takes into account “the seriousness of the inconvenience … the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct … [and] the interests of the community at large” when deciding if something should be enforced or not (Feinberg, Pg. 7-9). On the seriousness of the inconvenience, parents may be shocked to see something like that that they find offensive, which could cause very brief emotional turmoil, but the ability to avoid the event is easy. The events often happen no longer than an hour or two, other places are available to walk, and looking away is an easy way to avoid the public drag events. His section contention is the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct. In this case, the conduct is arguably reasonable since the drag performers are using their freedom of expression, something that Mill and Feinberg would agree with as it doesn’t cause harm to others. Lastly, he mentions the interests of the community at large. Although some parents wouldn’t want their kids to see drag shows, a larger majority of people are likely to agree with the premise of people expressing themselves if it doesn’t harm children. So, the majority (including Feinberg) would be likely to permit these events, while those who are offended by the events can easily avoid them for the limited time they are happening. Therefore, Feinberg would argue that the law is unjustified as it inhibits people’s expression and doesn’t cause enough offense to be handled by legislation and the government.
According to John Stuart Mill’s beliefs, this law is unjustified on the grounds that drag shows do not cause direct harm to others. This law would also be rejected by Joel Feinberg who takes into account “the standard of reasonable avoidability” when assessing the severity of an offense (Feinberg 35). His standard ranks offenses as minimal if they can easily be avoided which in the case of drag shows, they can be. For Mill, this question does not arise since he believes a government should intervene in society solely to protect citizens from another’s harm: also known as Mill’s harm to self principle. Drag shows, while public events, can be avoided relatively easily. Furthermore, Families that do not wish for their children to witness a drag show should not attend shows with their children since this directly puts them in a position to be offended. In Feinberg’s Volenti maxim, he argues “offended states that were voluntarily incurred, or the risk of which was voluntarily assumed by the person who experienced them, are not to count as ‘offenses’ at all in the application of the legislative ‘offensive principle’” (Feinberg 35). Declaring that the offenses incurred as a result of assumed voluntary risk are to be dismissed, Feinberg gives families the responsibility of taking their children to places where they know a drag show is set to take place. On the other hand, legal coercion in regards to banning drag shows can be partially justified in a separate part of Feinberg’s rubric that assess the severity of an offense; the duration of an offense heightens its severity. If a drag queens performed a show in a public park or shopping center, per say, the length and extent of the show’s public outreach would make it a more severe offense. A longer and more openly publicized show, versus hosting a drag show inside a local venue, would offer more probable cause to ban such shows to “[protect] kids and families”. Overall, Mill along with Feinberg would declare the ban on drag shows unjustified because it pertains to an “offense” that can be avoided and that does not cause direct harm to others.
ReplyDeleteThis law banning drag shows in public spaces in Tennessee is not justified under John Stuart Mill’s harm principle or a rights based framework. Mill argues that the only legitimate reason for legal coercion is to prevent harm to others. In this case, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that drag shows cause harm to children or any other individuals. The law seems to be based on moral objections rather than demonstrable harm. Without clear evidence of harm, such as psychological or physical damage, there is no valid justification for infringing on the rights of performers or attendees.
ReplyDeleteNext, this law infringes upon the fundamental rights to free expression and assembly. This is essential in a democratic society. Drag performances are a form of artistic and political expression and banning them restricts individuals' ability to express themselves. Mill’s liberal philosophy emphasizes personal freedom and autonomy, which should be protected unless there is a direct harm to others.
Lastly, the law is rooted in unwarranted paternalism, assuming that children are unable to discern or understand the nature of drag shows. While the state has a role in protecting minors, interventions should be based on clear harm. Without evidence that drag shows harm children or families, the law is an overreach of state power and unjustifiably restricts individual rights. Overall, the law lacks a legitimate basis for legal coercion and is not justified under Mill's views.
BEN MIYARES:
ReplyDeleteUnder Mill’s libertarian framework that he outlines in his essay, there’s no reason that these drag shows should be outlawed. Under the basic principle of ‘doing no harm to others is no harm at all’ anyone who wanted to dress in drag could, although there are several inherent flaws that Feinberg points out (in a way that made me lose my appetite). Things those do around us, while they might not directly harm people, can easily offend and ruin someone’s day. While Mill would let it fly, Feinberg would say that it depends on the area. If it were a district or area known historically for queer pride and drag shows, then it would most certainly fly. The area around the ‘offense’ is clearly well-known for having pride shows, and by that same logic could be easily avoidable. The area could just as easily be a hard-right, homophobic area, however, where the tolerance for pride was extremely low, then there would be some merit to outlawing it. Of course, the principles for outlawing it and the homophobia behind it have no legitimacy, but drag shows really do make some people incredibly uncomfortable, and the ‘paternalistic’ laws are instituted to ‘protect children’. This justification, and the one most often used by Republican lawmakers, would be justified under Feinberg’s views. The offense of the drag shows was so large and so extensive and incapable of being ignored (assuming it occurred in a reasonably public area) that it would be justified for the lawmakers to outlaw it.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of transgender rights has become increasingly more debated and polarized in our society today. According to the principles of Mill, banning drag shows in public spaces is not justified. Mill argues for legal moralism or using the law to prevent actions if they are immoral. This stance states that the government can use the law to restrict behaviors that are immoral even if there doesn’t seem to be an inherent problem. . Inherently, however, there is no moral problem with drag shows. Drag shows are not forced on people to watch, and people dressing up and showcasing in dress and makeup is not immoral. There is no moral difference between someone dressing up in drag and someone dressing up in halloween attire. People take offense to drag in certain scenarios but morally both Mill and I would agree that drag can not be restricted under legal moralism. The second idea that Mill would try to apply in this scenario is the harm to others principle. This essentially states that the government can restrict people's liberty if it causes harm to others. People like Bill Lee would say that drag shows do cause harm to others but this define dharma isn't succinct. People may hate drag shows and think they are wrong but a public drag show does not inherently harm anyone. Harm in this principle has to be extremely clear, and in this scenario. There is no concrete evidence to support the stance that drag shows cause harm. On the contrary, Mill would actually say that banning public drag shows violates people's liberty and shouldnt occur. He states that”. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill 18). This essentially states that just because a lot of people think that Drag shows are bad, it doesn't mean you can restrict the liberty of these drag performers. They have the intrinsic liberty to express themselves how they want and just because an opinion exists that it is wrong, doesn't mean that suffices to restrict that liberty. For these reasons Mill would deem the banning of public drag shows to be a violation of personal liberty, and thus not justified.
Mill would one hundred percent disagree with this bill; it is not justified, in his view. Multiple ideas in his book indicate that he will reject this idea. One of his main ideas is the harm others principle: the only justification for restricting one's liberty is to prevent harming others. This principle would not apply here because people participating in drag performances are not actively harming anyone. Since the action is not harmful, then it should not be outlawed, and the government is restricting the freedom of expression. Mill values freedom of expression heavily and believes that people should be able to live according to their values, which is not the case for this bill. Additionally, Mill’s ideas on liberalism also reject this bill because of how the state representative justifies the bill. According to Mill, it is the government’s burden to give a reason for restricting freedom, while the government here just gives a vague explanation that they are “protecting kids and families and parents who want to be able to take their kids to public places,” which can be used in a lot of scenarios. The claim is not specific enough for drag performance, which means they fail to justify why it should be outlawed. On the other hand, this bill can be approved by moralism, considering there is no harm in the action, but it might be considered an extreme offense in society and lead the government to ban it from the public eye. Furthermore, strong paternalism may support this measure by empowering the government to define what is good and bad for the people, with drag performance falling into the latter category.
ReplyDeleteAccording to John Stuart Mill’s views or other moral frameworks, in order to justify the banning of drag shows in Tennessee we need to focus on Mill’s harm principles. In the book, On Liberty, Mill argues that the only real reason for a society or government to restrict the freedom of an individual is when it causes harm to oneself and others around him. His belief people should be be free to act however they wish unless their actions directly cause the harm to other people. So in order to see if Drag shows should be banned we should wonder whether or not they are harmful. Much of the protection is for the children, the idea the “inappropriate content” is whether or not it should be shared or viewed by children. But in the view of John Mill if the drag shows don’t explicitly harm other people it should be banned. Even though many people might suggest that drag shows, typically are seen as sexually explicit or involve inappropriate behavior, they don’t necessarily harm kids. Mill supports parental autonomy in deciding what their children should be exposed to, as long as the exposure does not cause direct harm. But if the parents choose to take their children to such shows, the decision should be respected and completely up to the guardian of that specific kid. So unless there is a justifiable reason for it to be banned by harming other people, the Tennesse's decision to ban drag shows doesn’t align with the ideologies of John Stuart Mill.
ReplyDeleteThe Tennessee law banning drag shows in public spaces is unjustified under Mill's harm principle, which argues for the broadest possible liberty unless harm to others is clearly demonstrated. Mill writes, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others" (On Liberty, pg 14). The key idea here is actual harm, not offense, discomfort, or disapproval. Just because some people might not like drag performances or are offended, that doesn't mean the government has any right to ban them. There's no solid evidence that a drag show inherently harms children or families just by existing in a public place, and if parents don't want their kids to see drag performances, they can simply choose not to attend. That's very different from saying no one should be allowed to see them publicly. Mill would likely argue that the law isn't protecting anyone from harm — it's just enforcing the preferences of a majority over a minority. This is the exact kind of "tyranny of the majority" that Mill warns against. If we let the state ban public expression just because it challenges norms or makes some people uncomfortable, then any group could be silenced for the same reason. Mill makes it clear that the freedom to express oneself — even in ways others find odd or offensive — is essential to a healthy society. This law suppresses that freedom without real justification, and thus goes against Mill's philosophy.
ReplyDelete