Oklahoma AG Drummond Issues Landmark Opinion on Drag Show Obscenity, Sparks State Debate

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has unveiled a highly anticipated legal opinion clarifying the state's stance on the potential obscenity of drag shows. In a move that has ignited discussions across the state, Drummond's office concluded that while drag performances are not inherently obscene, they can indeed fall under the purview of existing state obscenity laws if they meet specific legal criteria.

This nuanced opinion aims to provide much-needed guidance to local authorities grappling with community standards and the protection of minors, yet it has also fueled a vigorous debate between free speech advocates and those with concerns about public decency.

At the heart of the Attorney General’s opinion is the well-established legal definition of obscenity, rooted in the landmark 1973 U.S.

Supreme Court case, Miller v. California. This three-pronged test, adopted into Oklahoma Statute Title 21, Section 1021, dictates that material or conduct can be deemed obscene if:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law.
3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Drummond’s opinion underscores that it is the application of these three criteria, rather than the nature of drag itself, that determines obscenity.

He emphasized that the Attorney General’s office does not have the authority to make determinations about specific drag shows or to issue blanket bans. Instead, the opinion serves as a legal framework, empowering local prosecutors and law enforcement to assess individual performances against these established legal standards.

This means that decisions regarding whether a particular drag show crosses the line into obscenity will ultimately rest with local district attorneys and courts, applying local community standards.

The request for this crucial opinion came from Senator David Bullard and Representative Kevin West, who expressed significant concerns about drag performances, particularly those accessible to minors.

Senator Bullard, known for his vocal stance on these issues, articulated a belief that drag shows, especially when seen by children, represent a “cancer” on society and stressed the importance of protecting young Oklahomans from what he perceives as inappropriate content. His request, and the subsequent opinion, reflect a broader national conversation about the appropriate boundaries of public performance and artistic expression, especially in venues where children may be present.

However, the opinion has not been met without contention.

Civil liberties organizations, notably the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oklahoma, have voiced strong reservations. The ACLU has consistently advocated for robust protections of free speech and artistic expression, warning that such opinions, even if legally sound, could be misused to target and harass LGBTQ+ performers and communities.

They argue that applying obscenity standards to drag shows could inadvertently chill artistic expression and lead to discriminatory enforcement, emphasizing that adult-oriented performances should not be censored based on subjective interpretations unless they genuinely meet strict legal definitions of obscenity, which are historically difficult to prove.

In essence, Attorney General Drummond’s opinion offers a measured, legalistic approach to a culturally charged issue.

It does not outlaw drag shows but rather provides a precise legal lens through which such performances can be evaluated for potential violations of existing obscenity statutes. As Oklahoma continues to navigate these complex questions, the focus will now shift to how local jurisdictions interpret and apply this guidance, balancing the principles of free speech with community expectations and the imperative to protect minors.