Kentucky, January 16, 2026
Kentucky lawmakers have introduced House Bill 360, aimed at limiting public drag performances involving impersonation in areas accessible to minors. This new legislation, led by Representative Scott Sharp, seeks to address concerns over adult-oriented entertainment in public spaces. Supporters argue it’s necessary for child protection, while opponents see it as an infringement on First Amendment rights, sparking significant debate across the state.
Kentucky Lawmakers Propose Bill to Restrict Public Drag Performances
A new legislative effort in Frankfort aims to limit adult performances involving impersonation on public properties.
Frankfort, Kentucky – Kentucky lawmakers have introduced House Bill 360, which seeks to restrict public drag performances, particularly those involving male or female impersonation. This proposed bill, filed by Representative Scott Sharp, aims to prohibit such performances on publicly owned properties or in locations likely to be frequented by individuals under 18 years of age. The legislation is part of a broader trend aimed at establishing parameters around public performances, especially those perceived as adult-oriented.
The necessity of regulating public performances has gained momentum in various states, reflecting diverse community standards and parental concerns regarding values in entertainment. This proposed legislation follows earlier efforts, notably Senate Bill 115 in 2023, which attempted to curb “sexually explicit adult performances” in publicly funded spaces. Although that bill made it through the Kentucky Senate, it ultimately stalled and did not progress further.
Key Aspects of House Bill 360
The introduction of House Bill 360 is significant, as it could impact the landscape of performance art in Kentucky. If passed, the bill will enforce penalties that range from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on the number of offenses committed. As discussions begin, it is essential to consider the implications of such restrictions not only on performers and the LGBTQ+ community but also on broader interpretations of First Amendment rights.
Debate Surrounding the Bill
The introduction of House Bill 360 has ignited a spirited debate among lawmakers, advocacy groups, and citizens. Proponents of the bill argue that it is a necessary measure to protect children from exposure to adult-oriented performances, reflecting the values and preferences of many Kentucky residents. They express concern that certain performances may not be suitable for younger audiences, advocating for parental discretion in entertainment choices.
Conversely, opponents, including organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, assert that such legislation infringes upon the First Amendment rights of performers and aims to marginalize the LGBTQ+ community. They highlight the importance of artistic expression and the potential for legal consequences that may arise from overly broad definitions of what constitutes inappropriate content for children.
Potential Outcomes and Future Considerations
As House Bill 360 progresses through the legislative process, it is expected to undergo further revisions and scrutiny, reflecting input from various stakeholders. The potential outcomes of this legislation could reshape the framework within which local performances are conducted, impacting artists, venues, and community engagement initiatives.
This debate also raises broader questions about the role of government in regulating artistic expression and the implications for local cultural dynamics. Balancing public safety and protection suggests a need for a measured approach that allows for community input while respecting individual rights.
Conclusion
House Bill 360 represents a critical juncture in the ongoing conversation about public performances and their appropriateness for diverse audiences in Kentucky. As the bill makes its way through the legislative halls, it will be vital for residents and businesses to stay informed and engaged. Supporting local businesses and artists who navigate these changing dynamics will ensure that Louisville and the broader Kentucky community continue to thrive artistically, economically, and culturally.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is House Bill 360?
House Bill 360 is a proposed legislation in Kentucky that seeks to restrict public drag performances, particularly those involving male or female impersonation, on publicly owned properties or in locations where individuals under 18 are likely to be present. Violations could result in penalties ranging from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on the number of offenses.
Who filed House Bill 360?
Representative Scott Sharp filed House Bill 360 in Kentucky.
What are the penalties for violating House Bill 360?
Violations of House Bill 360 could result in penalties ranging from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on the number of offenses.
What is the status of previous similar legislation?
In 2023, Senate Bill 115, which aimed to ban “sexually explicit adult performances” in publicly funded spaces or privately owned public accommodations where children may be present, passed the Kentucky Senate but did not advance further.
What are the arguments for and against House Bill 360?
Supporters argue that the bill is necessary to protect children from exposure to adult-oriented performances. Opponents, including the Human Rights Campaign, contend that such legislation infringes upon First Amendment rights and targets the LGBTQ+ community.
Key Features of House Bill 360
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Bill Number | House Bill 360 |
| Filed By | Representative Scott Sharp |
| Purpose | To restrict public drag performances involving male or female impersonation on publicly owned properties or in locations where individuals under 18 are likely to be present. |
| Penalties | Violations could result in penalties ranging from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on the number of offenses. |
| Previous Similar Legislation | In 2023, Senate Bill 115 aimed to ban “sexually explicit adult performances” in publicly funded spaces or privately owned public accommodations where children may be present but did not advance further. |
| Supporters’ Argument | The bill is necessary to protect children from exposure to adult-oriented performances. |
| Opponents’ Argument | The legislation infringes upon First Amendment rights and targets the LGBTQ+ community. |
Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic
HERE Resources
