SB 1164 revises Missouri law governing adult cabarets, sexually oriented businesses, and related performances. The bill expands and standardizes definitions across several statutes to include “adult cabaret performance,” “adult cabaret establishment,” and related terms such as nudity, seminudity, sexually oriented materials, and specified sexual activities. It also creates a new private right of action for residents of a city, town, or village where an adult cabaret performance occurs, allowing them to sue for damages or injunctive relief if the performance occurs on public property or in a place where it could be viewed by a person under 18.
The bill further creates a new criminal offense for engaging in an adult cabaret performance on public property or in a location reasonably expected to be viewed by a minor. A first offense would be a class A misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent offense would be a class E felony. In addition, the bill states that this new offense preempts conflicting local ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or licensing rules, including those adopted before August 28, 2026, and bars future local measures that conflict with the statute.
SB 1164 also amends existing Missouri provisions on sexually oriented businesses, including restrictions on exterior advertising signs near state highways and the stated public-policy purposes behind those restrictions, such as reducing adverse secondary effects, protecting minors, improving traffic safety, and limiting crime and prostitution. It updates chapter 573 definitions related to obscenity and child pornography to align with the bill’s broader regulatory framework for adult cabaret performances and sexually oriented businesses.
Because the bill was only prefiled and there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative record of debate or amendment activity here. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be aimed at restricting drag-related or other adult cabaret performances in public or near minors, and it likely reflects a strong regulatory and enforcement approach rather than a permissive one.
The main point of contention likely concerns free expression, local control, and the scope of the new criminal and civil penalties. Supporters would likely emphasize child protection, public decency, and uniform statewide standards, while opponents would likely object to the bill’s broad definitions, its preemption of local authority, and the possibility that it could chill lawful performances or target gender expression and entertainment venues.
The bill would repeal and replace portions of sections 67.2540, 226.531, and 573.010, RSMo, and add new sections 537.048 and 573.520. It would expand statutory definitions governing adult cabarets and sexually oriented businesses, create a new civil cause of action for residents, establish a new misdemeanor/felony offense for adult cabaret performances in certain locations, and expressly preempt conflicting local ordinances and licensing rules. It would also reinforce existing restrictions on signage and advertising for sexually oriented businesses and update related obscenity and child pornography definitions in Missouri law.
No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment in the materials. From the bill text, the measure is clearly framed as a restrictive, enforcement-oriented policy proposal, suggesting support from lawmakers concerned with minors, public property, and sexually oriented performances, and likely opposition from those concerned about speech rights, discrimination, and local autonomy.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s broad definition of “adult cabaret performance,” the creation of a private right of action for local residents, and the new criminal penalties for performances that could be viewed by minors or occur on public property. Another major issue is preemption: the bill would override conflicting local ordinances and prevent future local regulation, which could draw criticism from cities and towns that want to regulate these matters themselves. Civil liberties advocates, performers, venue operators, and LGBTQ-related groups would likely be concerned that the bill could be applied too broadly or discriminatorily, while supporters would likely argue it is necessary to protect children and public order.