A new legislative effort could prevent "adult oriented" businesses from operating in any location that is about 930 feet, the average length of a city block, from places frequented by children. The measure also includes a renewed effort to regulate drag shows in Kentucky.
Sen. Lindsey Tichenor and Rep. Nancy Tate filed identical bills on Tuesday. The bills would create statewide regulations for adult businesses and allow local governments to impose even stronger measures.
Businesses that display, distribute, or host sexually explicit performances would be banned from operating within a city block of an established school, childcare center, park, recreational area, place of worship, or children’s amusement business. Any existing adult business currently within that buffer zone would be given five years to comply with the legislation.
"We did write in a grace period for businesses who are already established," said Tichenor. "They will be grandfathered in and have five years to comply. We also considered if a business was existing and a childcare facility moved into the area and made them not compliant - they would not be in breach of these regulations."
The two lawmakers told reporters that the goal of their bills is to protect children from sexually explicit content.
“It is our responsibility as adults to protect the innocence of their minds and bodies,” Tate said.
Their legislation would prohibit minors from entering adult-oriented businesses and would prohibit those businesses from having outside displays of nudity or sexual conduct.
The measures define adult-oriented businesses to include any adult arcade, adult book or video store, adult cabaret, adult theater or any establishment hosting sexually explicit drag performances or any other performance involving sexual conduct.
Adult businesses violating those restrictions could lose their business and liquor licenses. However, there are no criminal penalties in the bills.
The bills would also renew an effort to regulate drag shows in the Bluegrass State. Last year, a measure would have banned drag shows on public property or in places where adult performances could be viewed by children. It also penalized the performers. During highly charged debates, supporters touted it as a child-protection measure while opponents said it would have stifled First Amendment rights.
Tichenor said Tuesday that the new legislation isn’t intended to impede free speech rights.
“This is not to limit drag,” Tichenor said at a news conference. “This is not to limit access to adult content. It is strictly to keep children away from sexually explicit content.”
"I don't think it will have a negative impact on the drag business. Again, this is about limiting sexually explicit content to minors," she added. "If there is an intention with the drag business to expose children to sexually explicit content, then I think this bill is much needed."
Tate explained that's why the bills would also prohibit sexually explicit drag performances in places frequented by children, such as libraries.
Asked who would decide what’s deemed sexually explicit, Tichenor replied: “It is defined in the bill pretty extensively. And it would be up to the communities. Obviously, a resident, a county attorney could bring forth a civil cause and question the performance and it would move forward from there.”
In response to the filing of the bills, Rebecca Blankenship Michael Frazier, with Ban Conversion Therapy Kentucky, emphasized that "federal law limits what the government can censor."
"It does allow for “hard-core pornography” to be regulated as obscene speech," their statement said.
"Every court that has considered bills like these have ruled that they do not see drag as “pornography.” On the contrary, drag is a political protest against both historical and modern gender roles—a marginalized people’s cry for freedom, a proud celebration of strength in the face of oppression," the statement read. "All Kentuckians, especially our pro-LGBT organizations, want to protect the innocence of all Kentucky children. This bill does not achieve that. Instead, it is an unconstitutional effort to suppress political speech. It can only waste our legislature’s time and our taxpayer dollars."
