AN ACT TO DEFINE THE TERMS "ADULT PERFORMANCE," "PERFORMANCE HARMFUL TO MINORS," AND "OBSCENITY"; TO PROHIBIT THE PERFORMANCE IN OR EXHIBITION OF AN ADULT PERFORMANCE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR IN A LOCATION WHERE THE ADULT PERFORMANCE COULD BE VIEWED BY A MINOR; TO PROHIBIT A STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION FROM EXHIBITING OR FUNDING, IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITH PUBLIC FUNDS, AN ADULT PERFORMANCE; TO CREATE A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION AS A REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
SB 2719 would create a new Mississippi law defining “adult performance,” “performance harmful to minors,” and “obscenity,” and then prohibit such performances on public property or anywhere they could be viewed by a minor. The bill specifically includes performances featuring topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators, and performers engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity or appearing unclothed.
The bill also bars state agencies and political subdivisions from exhibiting or using public funds, in whole or in part, to support an adult performance. It creates a private civil enforcement mechanism allowing people exposed to a prohibited performance, and parents or legal guardians of exposed minors, to sue for injunctions, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and punitive damages. The bill further states that sovereign immunity is not a defense, that claims may be brought without exhausting administrative remedies, and that the law preempts conflicting local ordinances or licensing rules.
In terms of state law, SB 2719 would add a new statutory restriction on performances and public funding, while tying its obscenity definition to existing Mississippi obscenity law. It would also affect local governments, public entities, venue operators, property owners, and performers by exposing them to civil liability if they host or fund covered performances in prohibited settings. The bill includes a savings clause stating it should not be construed to violate First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears aimed at restricting sexually explicit or drag-related performances around minors and public funding, which suggests support from sponsors concerned about child exposure and likely opposition from free-speech advocates, performers, venue operators, and local governments concerned about preemption and liability.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the definitions, especially the inclusion of male or female impersonators and performances that could be viewed by a minor, the civil cause of action with attorney’s fees and punitive damages, and the bill’s preemption of local regulation. Another likely issue is whether the restrictions could conflict with constitutional speech protections despite the bill’s express disclaimer.
SB 2719 would create a new chapter of restrictions on adult performances in Mississippi law, prohibiting covered performances on public property and in locations visible to minors, and barring public agencies from funding or exhibiting them. It would also establish a private right of action with broad remedies, including injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and no sovereign-immunity defense, while preempting conflicting local ordinances and licensing rules.
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll calls. From the bill’s content and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and public-funding restriction bill, but it also raises likely concerns about free speech, local control, and the scope of the prohibited conduct.
The most notable contention is likely over the bill’s broad definition of “adult performance,” which expressly includes topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, and male or female impersonators, as well as performances involving simulated sexual activity or nudity. Another major point of dispute is the private enforcement scheme, which allows exposed persons and parents of minors to sue for damages, fees, and punitive damages without exhausting administrative remedies and without sovereign immunity as a defense. Opponents would likely focus on First Amendment and overbreadth concerns, while supporters would emphasize shielding minors from sexually explicit performances and preventing public funds from supporting them.