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.
This past year in 2023, Tennessee governor, BIll Lee, signed a bill that banned drag shows in public spaces, a law that many other states are considering signing into law in their own respective states. The justification for signing this bill is that it is for the protection of kids and families in public spaces from things deemed inappropriate or dangerous for minors to see in public. Mill would likely classify this bill as paternalism as the government is taking away or limiting the freedoms of people and not allowing them to do things they want. To assess whether the bill is justified according to John Stuart Mill's views or any other relevant ethical principle, we have to consider Mill's harm principle, as that is the main principle he points to when justifying any type of paternalism or legal coercion. The main argument for banning drag shows may appear to be focused on protection of kids, as claimed by Jack Johnson, but throughout this whole process, supporters of the bills seem to base their arguments on the idea of public morality and their personal morality. If the law is framed in the idea that it is solely for the protection of the children Mill would be hesitant, but he might agree with it. The only way he would agree is if there was proof that the drag shows actually caused harm to other people, and did more than just offend them. However, it would be very difficult to actually provide evidence that proved without doubt that drag shows actually cause harm to children. In the eyes of Mill, people have the right to do whatever they want without interference from the government as long as they are not causing harm to others. In the case of drag shows I highly doubt that Mill would find that they cause harm, leading him to disagree with the bill. However, in the case of Dworkin, he might be slightly more inclined to agree as he is more supportive of “weak paternalism”. Yet he, like Mill, is a strong supporter of of individual autonomy and would likely disagree with the bill as it does not cause direct harm to others.
ReplyDeleteBill Lee, the Governor of Tennessee signed a bill banning drag shows in public areas in which the law would force drag shows to go underground in the state. The justification in question is that the governor believes that drag shows cause harm to families and especially children in public spaces. Although it is not scientifically proven that drag shows cause harm to children and families, banning drag shows and forcing them to go underground takes away what Mill would call natural liberty. The liberty of expression is especially important to Mill as he believes that through diversity opinions and beliefs create the best viable way to progress society. Furthermore, looking into Mill’s views on legal paternalism it is evident that through his harm to other’s principle only if beyond any doubt that drag shows cause harm to children or families, he would agree with the law being passed. However, this is a very hard claim to prove as many scientific studies would need to be conducted and proven to effectively determine if children are actually being harmed by drag shows. It is clear that not only would Mill disagree with the bill, but it is entirely unjustified in Mills’ eyes as it takes away the liberty of expression. As other states continue to change their laws on drag shows I believe that Mill would find that the government is inherently causing more harm to society by limiting people to express themselves than children and families being affected by drag shows. Similarly, to Mill, Fienberg would agree that there is no justification for legal coercion in this case as it limits cultural diversity and infringes on individual freedom of expression. Although, Fienberg is more in favor of Paternalism than Mill, Fienberg would also agree that there needs to be concrete prove of harm before coming to a legal conclusion.
ReplyDelete