Will Utah follow Tennessee's lead by banning adult-themed performances in public?
State Rep. Colin Jack, R-St. George, publicly unveiled HB401, Adult-oriented Performance Amendments, on Monday. But he has been working on the bill ever since entering office in 2022.
'I want parents to have the comfort knowing that if they're out in public with their children, then they have a reasonable expectation to not be visually assaulted by an adult-oriented performance,' Jack told the Deseret News.
The bill, based on Tennessee legislation prohibiting 'adult cabaret performance,' would create a criminal offense for individuals engaged in an adult-oriented performance in a public place or in the presence of a minor.
An adult-oriented performance is defined as a live performance that is 'harmful to minors,' which includes:
The removal of clothing in a sexual manner.
Nudity.
The depiction of sexual conduct.
Sexually oriented dancing.
An act of lewdness as defined by a 2024 bill sponsored by Jack.
Under HB401, adult-oriented performances would be prohibited in any location where a substantial group of the public has access, including roads, parks, public recreation facilities, shopping centers, schools and certain businesses.
Individuals who engage in adult-oriented performances in public spaces that are accessible to minors can be charged with a class A misdemeanor if they are over 18 years old, or a class B misdemeanor if the individual is 16 or 17.
A subsequent violation of the law would be considered a third degree felony if the individual is at least 18 years old.
The bill would prohibit cities or counties in Utah from adopting or enforcing a conflicting ordinance.
Jack, who typically focuses on energy policy, sees his bill as an attempt to maintain family-friendly values in the Beehive State as other states expand 'family friendly' to include more behaviors.
'As parts of the country start to declare these things normal, I feel like certain elements are targeting Utah to try to normalize them here,' Jack said. 'And I think it shouldn't be.'
There were multiple activities engaged in during last year's pride parade in Salt Lake City that would have run afoul of his new bill, according to Jack.
But the enforcement of his bill, if it passes, will ultimately depend on which communities are willing to prosecute based on the complaints they receive, Jack said.
Critics have already begun to express worry that the bill unfairly targets certain groups with censorship.
Equality Utah, one of the largest LGBTQ activist groups in the state, confirmed they will speak with Jack about the bill on Wednesday.
House Minority Whip Sahara Hayes, D-Salt Lake City, said she is worried about how the bill could affect performances such as plays that parents could choose to bring their children to.
Hayes, who says she ran for office to advocate for LGBTQ+ youth, opposed Jack's 2024 lewdness bill — which was eventually signed into law — saying he cherrypicked the worst examples to justify a blanket ban that could have unintended consequences.
On Jack's current legislation, Hayes said that many of the acts prohibited by the bill are found in popular plays. As with R-rated movies, Hayes said the decision of what performances are viewed by a child should be left to the parent.
'I find it a frustrating bill in the first place because I do think it is trying to target drag through so many words. But I also think it's going to have ramifications in our performing arts sector in a really big way,' Hayes said.
The issue of controversial public performances was top of mind for Jack when he entered office in July of 2022.
Months earlier, HBO had filmed an episode of its drag queen reality show 'We're Here' in St. George's Town Square park.
The event sparked outcry among some city residents and led to the resignation of the city manager who approved the permits for the event.
In May 2023, drag performers sued St. George for denying a permit for a drag show. Following a court ruling, which allowed the drag show to move forward, the case ended with a private settlement in January 2025.
During his three sessions as a lawmaker, Jack has introduced at least one bill each session addressing his constituents' concerns about the kind of public events that should be allowed.
In 2023, Jack planned to introduce a similar bill to the one he is running this year. But with the model legislation in Tennessee being upheld in court, Jack opted for a bill that would require all events on public property with potential adult themes to have a sign warning people about it.
While the bill, HB329, garnered two dozen co-sponsors and passed the House with wide margins, it stalled in the Senate when concerns were brought up that it may have presented a liability for municipalities, Jack said.
In 2024, Jack successfully introduced HB244, creating new criminal penalties paired with an updated definition of lewdness involving a child, which would include things like simulating sexual acts with the intent to cause 'affront or alarm' to minors.
This year, a federal court ruling paved the way for Jack to pursue the policy he initially pushed for in response to the drag show in St. George.
In July, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Tennessee law banning 'adult cabaret performances' in public places.
This bill was a model for what Jack is trying to do with HB401 but Utah's version has more specific definitions, Jack said.
Now, with firmer legal footing, Jack expects his bill to move quickly through the Republican supermajority in the House and Senate this legislative session.
'There are those who feel like indecent material should be presented to minors. I don't, I don't think the majority of the Legislature feels that, I don't think the governor feels that, and I don't think the vast majority of Utahns feel that,' Jack said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
13 minutes ago
- CNBC
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy: Debt is the greatest threat to America
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the state of U.S. trade negotiations, his thoughts on the U.S.-EU trade deal, U.S.-China trade talks, state of the economy, America's debt crisis, and more.
Vox
13 minutes ago
- Vox
How Republicans are trying to redistrict their way to a majority
We're more than a year out from the 2026 midterm elections, but the Republican Party is already starting to position itself for what will likely be a difficult election cycle. Texas lawmakers have an unusual plan to redraw their maps early and eke out as many as five more likely Republican seats in the House of Representatives — and California Gov. Gavin Newsom is promising to respond by doing the same thing in California. To find out more, I asked my colleague Christian Paz, who wrote about these efforts last week. We sat down to chat about his reporting for Vox's daily newsletter, Today, Explained, and our conversation is below. You can also sign up for the newsletter here for more conversations like this. What are Republicans trying to do ahead of the 2026 midterms? Ahead of the 2026 midterms, when parties in power tend to lose seats in Congress, there is an expectation that Trump, who has a tiny two-seat majority in the House, could lose that majority, which would effectively render him a lame duck for the second half of his second term. In response, Trump has been pushing for Texas state Republicans to take advantage of the fact that the legislature in Texas controls redistricting and to redraw the maps in Texas in the middle of the decade, when it is not usually the norm. Republicans could gain about five seats that are less competitive than the current map makes it out to be — essentially dividing up Democratic districts, mixing them with some Republican-leaning voters, and carving out five more seats that presumably Republicans would then win and be able to keep their majority in the House. Are there other states looking to do this, too? There are a handful of other states. At the moment, there is redistricting happening in Ohio as a result of court challenges in the past, and the new maps that are being redrawn would render about three more Republican seats out of Ohio. The other state is Missouri, which would render one more Republican seat. In response, the question has been, Can Democrats do this, too? The reason this is happening is because these are states where 1) Republicans have total control of government, and 2) the legislature still has power over drawing maps, or there are legal quirks requiring redistricting. Democrats are much more limited on this front because of the states that have Democratic trifectas, the majority of them don't give the power to redraw districts to the legislature. They give it to independent commissions or to bipartisan commissions, or their constitutions have stricter bans on redistricting early. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. With that being said, Gavin Newsom is threatening to add more Democratic seats in California. How does he want to make that happen? His plan is a little vague. A lot of the Democratic response seems to be a form of mutually assured destruction — the main idea here is to say that you're going to do the same thing and hope to scare Republicans out of doing this. And the idea Gavin Newsom has proposed is putting a measure on the ballot in an upcoming election, having a statewide referendum to either approve new maps or permanently change the way that the state does its redistricting. The idea there is to create five to seven more Democratic seats in California, which seems like a pretty tall order. It's possible that the state is already pretty maxed out. Can Democrats conceivably wring enough seats out of their redistrictable states to match the GOP? The other obvious seats that are out there are states like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, which conceivably could all produce one to two more Democratic seats. There's always New York, too, and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who met with Democratic state lawmakers from Texas last week, has said that he's open to the idea as well. Republicans seem to be all in for this plan. Democrats aren't so sure. Tell me about that. The issue here is that Democrats, because they have tended to be the folks who argued against gerrymandering and this kind of politically motivated redistricting, acknowledge that it's not normal to do this. They acknowledge that maybe the rules are changing, but redistricting opens them up to charges of hypocrisy or descending to the same level as Republicans. But many Democrats are saying, you know, We're running out of options. Democratic voters want us to do something. That's been the rallying cry from the party base to party leadership over the last year, and this is a pretty substantive plan to do that. But then what happens in the next five years? What happens in 10 years? Is this just going to become something that states do whenever they notice that their national party is in danger of losing a majority or losing a political advantage? Does that then diminish trust in the political system as a whole? Does that raise even more questions about accountability and transparency that were the point of trying to have independent redistricting to begin with? In previous midterms, you've seen much bigger swings than five or even 10 seats, so it's very possible that this shaves the margins for Republicans, but doesn't end up swinging control of the House in 2026, right? Yes. This could either be another 2018 'blue wave' situation, where even if Republicans redistrict, they would lose the majority anyway. Or it could be a 2022-style midterm, where you have mixed results — Democrats are able to flip some Senate seats, but Republicans are actually able to uphold or expand their House majority by small margins. And the reason I bring that last point up is because this is another point that some critics on both sides are making. By trying to gerrymander things even more, you're making assumptions about what voters you have in your column, and given how much various parts of the electorate have swung…Black and Latino voters have swung toward the Republicans. Could they be swinging away from them this time around? Are you making an assumption as a Republican that you have a lot of a certain kind of voter, and then making a district slightly less safe because you're trying to shovel voters into a new district that you're creating? It creates questions about same effect in California: If you try to max out even more districts, are you accidentally making some of your other districts more competitive than they have to be, and in that case, will you end up having to spend even more money and resources on races that weren't competitive before, but now are because you're trying to marginally make another seat less competitive? There's a lot of inherent assumptions being made about what the electorate will look like next year. And again, one thing that's really easy to forget — and this is true for the parties, too, and I haven't really seen this discussed — is that in the Trump era, you have two different electorates. You have different electorates that turn out in midterms versus general elections. Sometimes it can be drastically different and much more Democratically aligned than you expect, and that ends up leading to overperformance, like in 2018 or 2022.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Ebooks are on the line as Congress considers future of library funding
Like checking out library ebooks? Congress, Trump could make it harder by cutting federal funding for libraries. CROFTON, Maryland ‒ Claire Holahan, 34, takes her toddler to the library once or twice a week for story time, so she can play with other children and the library's toys. It's not until after bedtime that she has time to click open her own ebook, downloaded from the library. "I don't want to have a collection (of paper books). It seems kind of wasteful … I'd rather just take it out from the library and then somebody else borrows it and gets to enjoy it," she said. Holahan is among millions of Americans who could lose ebook access from their local library under the budget bill the House is currently considering. At Trump's request, it eliminates federal funding for libraries and museums, which is often used to fund ebooks among other services. Without ebooks through the local library "I would have a hard time reading as many books as I do," Holahan said. States' libraries to lose as much as half their funding The Institute for Museum and Library Services, a tiny, little known federal agency, provides grants to states, accounting for between 30% and 50% of state library budgets, according to the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies. For decades it has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved funds through grants to state libraries in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. and to library, museum and archives programs. It serves 35,000 museums and 123,000 libraries across the country, according to its website. The impact of losing the money will be different in each state because each one spends its portion of the funding differently. Some will have to fire staff and end tutoring and summer reading programs. Others will cut access to electronic databases, end intra-library loans or reduce access to books for the deaf and blind. Many will have to stop providing internet service for rural libraries or ebook access statewide. With the expectation that Congress won't buck Trump and fund the IMLS, the future of these backbone "compassionate" library services is now under discussion across the nation, said John Chrastka, founder of EveryLibrary, a nonprofit that organizes grassroot campaigns for library funding and blocking book bans. It isn't clear whether states will be able to fill the gap left if federal funding ends, especially with other responsibilities the Trump administration is passing off to the states, like requiring them to pick up a larger share of Medicaid costs and a percentage of food assistance benefits for the first time, along with changing education and disaster funding. 'We cannot possibly at the State Library save our way out of an $8 million hole,' said California State Librarian Greg Lucas. 'The state's budget isn't in real great shape on its own and so the badness is compounded by these actions by the federal government. It's kind of: OK, where are we going to go? There aren't any easy answers to this.' The institute 'shall be eliminated' On March 14 Trump issued an executive order eliminating the Institute of Museum and Library Services 'to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.' The order states that the Institute must be reduced to its "statutory functions.' It also requires that 'non-statutory components and functions … shall be eliminated.' The proposed budget would cut federal funding for libraries and museums from nearly $300 million to $5.5 million. The agency's budget justification says the remaining money is for "sunsetting" or ending the agency. Requests for comment about the cuts sent to an IMLS spokesperson and to the Labor Department where acting IMLS Director Keith Sonderling is Deputy Secretary of Labor were not answered. After the majority of IMLS staff were laid off in late March, state libraries in California, Connecticut and Washington were abruptly told that their state grants had been canceled and received almost no other information. Panicked, Mississippi temporarily halted ebook lending so it wouldn't be accountable for the cost while the future of funding was in doubt. The state grants for California, Connecticut and Washington were restored May 5. Then came another letter from IMLS telling states that they were only getting 50% of their allocated funding. To get the rest, they needed to fill out a questionnaire about how the libraries were complying with Trump's executive orders on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, how they were supporting American's education needs and America's 250th anniversary. On April 4, 21 states sued in federal court saying that Trump can't end the agency without permission from Congress. The judge ordered IMLS to reinstate grants and staff until the case is heard. Congress, which must approve the agency's shutdown, had been scheduled to discuss its funding in late July, but pushed it off until after their summer recess ends in September. Struggling to afford ebooks, despite 'huge appetite from the public' Losing the money for ebooks would be particularly hard for states, Hoboken (New Jersey) Public Library Director Jennie Pu told USA TODAY. Interest in ebooks spiked during the pandemic, she said, but digital copies of books cost far more than paper and licensing agreements come with strings. Libraries pay three to five times as much for an ebook than what they cost in a private sale. Anecdotally, Pu said, some cost $70 per title. Some major publishers lease ebooks to libraries for two years, with the limit that only one patron can check out each digital copy at a time. Other licensing agreements expire after a set number of checkouts or are a mix of the two methods. 'We're spending more and more money in our budgets towards ebooks. There is a huge appetite from the public,' said Pu, adding that her library saw a 20% increase in ebook usage this year. 'We are so committed to meeting that need from the public and our challenge is we don't have an unlimited source of funds." In May, the Connecticut legislature passed a law aimed at reducing the cost of ebooks to libraries. New Jersey and other states have introduced similar legislation. California hopes to spend as much of its remaining federal funding as possible putting more ebooks into its 300,000-item statewide catalog, Lucas, the state librarian, said. The goal is to make sure that the 8,700 people in Modoc County, one of the least populous places in the state, have access to the same ebooks and audio books that are available to the 9.6 million people in Los Angeles County ‒ home to the second largest library system in the country, Lucas said. Part of what the State Library still needs to do is figure out how to pay the yearly $146,000 in platform fees to keep providing access to the ebooks and audiobooks it has. And, it's hoping to save some of the other services normally funded by the federal grant, like the California Revealed program, which digitizes audio, video, photos and newspapers to preserve state history, Lucas said. Because federal money is distributed based on population, his state has the most to lose ‒ roughly $15 million, according to Lucas. 'We're operating under the assumption there'll be no federal money to support us," he said. 'Always on his Kindle' At the Crofton Community Library in Maryland, patrons are greeted by boxes of free fresh vegetables. Dozens of house plants decorate the shelves and window sills, absorbing the light from windows that run from the tops of bookshelves to the ceiling. A buzz fills the room from kids working on an art activity for the summer reading program, which Maryland's State Library helps fund with its federal grant. Adult patrons talk with the librarians or with one another at broad wooden tables. Amanda Kelly, 30, of Crofton told USA TODAY that every time her family moves to a new Air Force station she immediately finds the local library to begin building their new community. Her children played in a garden outside as they waited for a summer reading event to start. Her husband is "always on his Kindle" reading library eBooks, she said, while she prefers paper copies. "I don't agree with cutting funding for libraries at all, never," she said. "That stinks." Other patrons said they check out audio books for friends, use the library for its social aspects or attend classes there, ranging from chair yoga to how to avoid online scams. Only one of the dozen people who spoke to USA TODAY knew that the federal library funding might be cut. Marquita Graham, 42, of Upper Marlboro told USA TODAY she often brings a group of children, including several with special needs, to the Crofton library for story time, as well as to use the computers and read-along audio books. "I'm shocked," she said. Ending library services "would be sad." We want to hear from people affected by or who have knowledge of the Trump administration's efforts to reshape the government, including actions by DOGE. Know something others should? Reach out at swire@ or Signal at sarahdwire.71
