Florida judges just told parents they have no right to protect their kids from sexually charged drag performances — in yet another example of activist courts running roughshod over state laws designed to shield our children.
At a Glance
- Federal appeals court blocked Florida’s 2023 “Protection of Children Act” law prohibiting minors from attending drag performances
- Judges ruled 2-1 that the law was “substantially overbroad” and violated First Amendment free speech protections
- The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit by Hamburger Mary’s, an Orlando venue known for family-friendly drag events
- In Naples, a separate case allowed a drag show near a children’s playground despite state law
- Liberty Counsel is intervening in the Naples case to defend the law protecting children
Activist Judges Override Parents’ Rights
In a disturbing act of judicial activism, a federal appeals court has decided that the First Amendment grants drag performers more rights than parents trying to protect their children. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold a preliminary injunction blocking Florida’s 2023 law that was designed to prevent children from being exposed to sexual content in drag performances. The majority opinion, predictably written by Obama and Biden appointees, struck down Senate Bill 1438 as “substantially overbroad” – their typical go-to excuse when they want to nullify laws protecting traditional values.
It’s no coincidence the two judges who formed the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents while the dissenting judge was appointed by a Republican. This is how the left weaponizes the courts – stack them with activists who legislate from the bench. The majority claimed the law lacked “specificity” in regulating speech. Here’s what they really mean: they want to remove obstacles to exposing your children to content that you, as parents, find inappropriate.
Naples Battle Highlights Broader Conflict
The court’s assault on parental rights extends beyond this ruling. In Naples, Florida, another federal judge allowed a drag show to take place near a children’s playground – explicitly overriding state law prohibiting such events within view of minors. Naples Pride, with the ACLU’s backing, sued the city after officials sensibly tried to move the event indoors and restrict it to adults. Judge John Steele, in his infinite wisdom, decided that protecting children from inappropriate content was less important than the “free speech” rights of drag performers.
“They are not actually talking about pride… we are talking about whether or not we are going to allow the sexual grooming of children in public parks.” John Strand.
Local Naples parents were rightfully outraged. Erika Donalds, a concerned parent, put it plainly when she declared, “This cannot — absolutely cannot — happen in the city of Naples.” But apparently in today’s America, the concerns of parents take a backseat to the desires of activist groups and their enablers in the judiciary. The city of Naples has historically moved these performances indoors specifically to shield children, but now even that common-sense precaution is deemed “unconstitutional.”
Vague Arguments Mask Clear Agenda
The court’s reasoning rests on deliberately vague legal jargon. Judge Robin Rosenbaum criticized the law for taking an “‘I know it when I see it’ approach to regulating expression.” This is rich coming from the same judicial system that regularly employs subjective standards when it suits their progressive agenda. They demand crystal-clear definitions for terms like “lewd conduct” while giving virtually unlimited latitude to redefine foundational concepts like biological sex and gender.
“Requiring clarity in speech regulations shields us from the whims of government censors. And the need for clarity is especially strong when the government takes the legally potent step of labeling speech ‘obscene.’ An ‘I know it when I see it’ test would unconstitutionally empower those who would limit speech to arbitrarily enforce the law. But the First Amendment empowers speakers instead. Yet Florida’s Senate Bill 1438 (the law) takes an ‘I know it when I see it’ approach to regulating expression.” Judge Robin Rosenbaum.
Judge Gerald Tjoflat, in his dissent, correctly pointed out that the majority “sidesteps the very tools our system provides — tools designed to respect state authority, foster comity, and avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings.” Translation: these activist judges deliberately ignored legal avenues that would have respected Florida’s sovereignty to make its own laws protecting children. Liberty Counsel, thankfully, is intervening in the Naples case, reminding everyone that “The law is not erased or suspended” just because a single judge decided to issue an injunction.
The Battle Continues
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody has already vowed to fight this ruling, and the state could seek an en banc rehearing by the full 11th Circuit, which leans conservative. There’s also the possibility this case reaches the Supreme Court, where sanity might prevail. The fundamental question remains: Who decides what’s appropriate for children? Parents and their elected representatives, or activist judges imposing their values from the bench?
What’s most galling about these rulings is the pretense that they’re about “free speech” rather than a deliberate attack on parents’ rights and traditional values. The courts have no problem restricting speech in countless other contexts – from political campaign finance to religious expression in schools – but suddenly become First Amendment purists when it comes to drag shows near playgrounds. The selective application of constitutional principles reveals their true agenda, and parents across America should be outraged.
