SB 1476 revises Missouri’s statutes governing sexually oriented businesses and adult cabaret performances. It repeals and reenacts definitions in sections 67.2540, 226.531, and 573.010 to add and clarify terms such as “adult cabaret performance,” “adult cabaret,” “sexually oriented business,” “seminudity,” and related sexual-content definitions. The bill also updates the scope of businesses covered to include any business other than an adult cabaret that offers an adult cabaret performance.
The bill creates a new criminal offense in section 573.520 for engaging in an adult cabaret performance when the performance occurs on public property or in a location other than an adult cabaret where it is reasonably expected to be viewed by a person who is not an adult. A first offense is a class A misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent offense is a class E felony. The bill also states that its provisions preempt conflicting local ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or licenses, including those adopted before August 28, 2026, and bars political subdivisions from adopting conflicting future rules.
In addition to the criminal provision, the bill revises existing regulation of sexually oriented businesses, including signage limits for adult cabarets and sexually oriented businesses near state highways and the stated public-policy purposes behind those restrictions. The measure would affect business owners, performers, local governments, and law enforcement by expanding state-level control over adult entertainment and limiting local regulatory authority in conflicting areas.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context shows no documented debate or formal vote history. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a regulatory and public-safety bill, with its stated goals focused on limiting exposure to minors, reducing adverse secondary effects, and standardizing enforcement statewide. The absence of recorded discussion means no specific support or opposition can be identified from the provided materials.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is likely the scope of the new offense and the state preemption of local regulation. The bill’s broad definitions of adult cabaret performance and its restriction on performances in places where minors might reasonably view them could raise concerns among performers, venue operators, and local governments about free-expression issues, enforcement breadth, and loss of local control. Supporters would likely emphasize child protection, public decency, and uniform statewide standards.
SB 1476 would amend Missouri’s nuisance and sexually oriented business statutes and add a new criminal offense for adult cabaret performances in public places or in locations visible to minors. It would also modify statutory definitions in chapters 67, 226, and 573 to expand and clarify the categories of adult cabarets, sexually oriented businesses, nudity, seminudity, and related sexual-content terms. The bill further limits local governments by preempting conflicting ordinances, regulations, restrictions, and licenses, thereby centralizing authority at the state level.
No committee transcripts or roll-call votes were provided, so there is no direct record of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the supplied materials. From the bill text, the measure is presented in a law-and-order, child-protection, and public-safety frame, suggesting likely support from sponsors and proponents of stricter regulation of adult entertainment. At the same time, the breadth of the definitions and the preemption language indicate the bill could draw opposition from local governments, venue operators, and civil-liberties or entertainment-industry critics.
The most notable contention points are the bill’s broad definition of “adult cabaret performance,” the criminal penalties attached to performances in public or potentially visible to minors, and the express preemption of local ordinances and licensing rules. Opponents would likely argue that the bill sweeps too broadly, restricts expressive conduct, and overrides municipal authority. Supporters would likely contend that the bill is necessary to protect minors, reduce secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses, and create uniform statewide enforcement standards.