GOP-appointed judge stops Texas college from banning its drag show
A drag show scheduled for this week at Texas A&M University can go on as scheduled despite a Board of Regents ban on such performances, a federal judge ruled Monday.
The ruling from Houston-based U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal blocked a university ban on drag performances on free speech grounds.
'To ban the performance from taking place on campus because it offends some members of the campus community is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits,' Rosenthal, who was nominated to the bench by the late President George H.W. Bush, said in her opinion.
The ruling blocks the ban while the broader legal case over it moves forward. The decision echoes others in recent years from the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to let Florida enforce a statewide ban, and district courts in a Montana, Tennessee and Texas.
Texas A&M has become a flashpoint in the most recent chapter of the legal battle.
Two years ago, the president of West Texas A&M in Canyon, said a drag show scheduled for that campus could not move ahead. In response to a legal challenge, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the university could block the show, finding it contained 'sexualized content' and could be more regulated than other forms of speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year declined to take the case when the student group behind it appealed.
This time around, the backdrop is different. The Board of Regents passed a policy banning drag shows across the university system on Feb. 28, after tickets had already been sold to the 'Draggieland' show on the flagship campus in College Station. The show has been an annual event there since 2020.
In the first two years, the university supported it financially. But in recent years, the student group Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council has been responsible for all the funding.
The university argued that allowing the show could jeopardize federal funding for the university in light of President Donald Trump 's executive order barring federal money to support what he calls ' gender ideology.' It noted how funds were cut off from Columbia University.
The judge decided that allowing the event does not imply that the university endorses it. By allowing it, she said, the university could comply with the "constitutional obligation to allow different messages and viewpoints, including those viewed as offensive to some, to be expressed at a university that is committed to critical thought about a wide range of conflicting and divergent viewpoints and ideologies.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Bride secretly sells alcohol behind her husband's back at their 'dry wedding' - and her reasoning has left people baffled
A bride has been criticised and called 'manipulative and selfish' after setting up a secret bar at her 'dry' wedding behind her husband's back. The 27-year-old woman, thought to be from the U.S, commented on a San Francisco-based online chat forum Reddit under the thread: 'Am I the a**hole?' She said that she and her husband, who is 29, had a big wedding with 300 guests which she described as 'beautiful, honestly a dream'. However, because both of their families are 'super conservative and very religious', the couple told everyone that it would be a dry wedding with no alcohol to 'keep the peace' with their parents and extended family. The couple were footing most of the bill themselves so the bride saw an opportunity to make some of their money back by creating a 'wedding speakeasy'. She wrote: 'I saw an opportunity and took it. I hired a licensed bartender friend of mine to set up a 'VIP bar' hidden at the venue (it was at a large event hall with a garden and private side rooms). 'I gave a heads-up to about 75 of our younger friends and more chill cousins, and basically had them pay for drinks- think wedding speakeasy.' But she faced backlash online because she didn't tell her husband about her plan of action beforehand and said she was even called 'manipulative and selfish' by her new mother-in-law after they found out the secret bar. The woman said that drinks were 'reasonably priced' and charged $5 for beer and $8 for cocktails, which people 'were happy to pay' as she described open bar weddings as rare in their social circle and said her guests thought it was 'kind of fun'. The bride - who said that she paid her bartender the tips he earned from the day - managed to make $2,000 from around 75 wedding guests, which helped the pair cover part of their catering bill. But it wasn't long before the word got out and a few of her aunts overheard other guests chatting about the 'secret bar'. She said: 'Now my mom is livid. She says I lied to everyone, disrespected the family, and made a "mockery of our values." My [mother-in-law] also called me "manipulative and selfish." 'But honestly, most of our guests didn't even know it happened, and the ones who did loved it. We didn't force anyone to drink. We just gave the option discreetly.' The woman said that she didn't tell her husband because she thought he would get stressed and 'would say no out of guilt'. 'My husband is kind of in the middle. He gets why I did it but wishes I had told him beforehand.' The woman asked whether she was an a**hole for keeping it under wraps, even from her spouse, to which one Redditor commented: 'Dude, I was SO on board with you! This was a great idea…. Until you neglected to inform your spouse!!!! 'If you both had agreed then frankly I'd say your conservative family's opinions don't matter, BUT your spouse's does!!! 'Let this be a lesson in marriage for the future: always consult your partner. The rest of the world can be against you, but you both should always have the other's back. By lying to them you weren't being a good life partner.' Another penned: 'Definitely, you're the a**hole] to the other 200 guests who weren't told there was a bar. 'Imagine having to sit through someone's 'dry' wedding only to find out they and their friends were drinking the whole time.' A third said: 'Honestly, I thought your wedding speakeasy was an awesome idea. '[You're the a**hole] big time for not including your husband in on it, but you're [not the a**hole] for doing it. You guys are a team and it was both your wedding. 'However, your life and your values are YOURS. Nobody has the right to tell you how you should live your life. 'You're a grown, married woman. Grow a backbone and stop letting them try to control you. 'Your husband should do the same. It's not going to get any better when you buy a house or have children. If they don't like it, tough.'
Scottish Sun
19 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Love Island's Ben reveals hair transplant at just 22 years old with before and after video
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) LOVE Island star Ben Holbrough has revealed he had a hair transplant at just 22 years old. The model and private hire taxi driver went for the op last year before heading into the Majorca villa. Sign up for the Entertainment newsletter Sign up 8 Love Island star Ben Holbrough seen before his hair transplant Credit: Instagram / 360hairclinic 8 The clinic he went to has posted before and after clips from his treatment last year Credit: Instagram / 360hairclinic 8 A video revealed Ben's hair transplant progress 8 Ben has been causing a stirl in the villa - he ended things with Toni last night Credit: Love Island Ben's before and after results were seen in a video posted by 360 Hair Clinic. They said: "Hair Update: 6 Months Post-Transplant. "This clip was taken a year ago, just 6 months after @ hair transplant and even back then, the results were clear. Fuller. Thicker. Healthier-looking hair. "We facilitated Ben's surgery with a trusted UK-based surgeon, alongside in-clinic treatments and consistent use of our 360 Optimum Hair products ... "And as you can see on your screens watching Love Island, Ben's hair is looking better than ever." He's not the only boy in the villa this year to have the op. Harry Cooksley, 29, also had a transplant at 24 years old. While he's now got a full head of hair, that wasn't always the case for the Guildford lad - who jetted to Turkey to have the procedure. Appearing in a YouTube video posted by the clinic he visited in Istanbul, Harry explained the process and showed off the before and after results. He said: 'It was a perfect experience for something that I really wanted to have done and I'm very glad that I found EstePera.' Love Island fans beg bosses to axe islander after cruel comment to one girl Ben has been causing a stirl in the villa after he ended things with Toni last night. Ben told Shakira he got the ick with Toni and Shakira let Toni know. Toni confronted Ben, asking: 'I've heard from people you said I'm giving you the ick?' It quickly turned sour and he told her: 'I don't feel like me and you have got that spark if I am being honest.' Looking taken aback she replied 'okay' as he continued: 'That is just me being honest but I know when I have got it with someone. 'That I feel it straight away. But yeah I don't feel like you and me have got it.' Toni snapped back: 'I mean I don't think that technique is going to work for you here.' He asked what she meant and she replied: 'Right away off the bat.' Smirking, he responded: 'You'd be surprised. I feel like sparks have already been made.' A very unhappy Toni hit back: 'Good luck pal.' 8 Toni and Ben suffered an awkward moment last night Credit: Shutterstock Editorial 8 Harry is also one of this year's Love Island lads who have undergone a hair transplant Credit: Shutterstock 8 He jetted to Turkey at 24 to have a hair transplant Credit: YouTube
The Herald Scotland
34 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Can Scottish arts community survive without its sponsors?
A quick recap, then a look at why this matters. Swedish activist Greta Thunberg pulled out of an appearance at the Edinburgh International Book Festival (EIBF) in 2023 on account of its long-standing relationship with Edinburgh-based investment firm Baillie Gifford. She viewed this hook-up as an example of 'green-washing' by a firm gaining from investments in companies whose interests were inimical to her beliefs. 'Green-washing efforts by the fossil fuel industry, including sponsorship of cultural events, allow them to keep the social license to continue operating,' she said in a statement. 'I cannot and do not want to be associated with events that accept this kind of sponsorship.' Following Ms Thunberg's withdrawal, and on the eve of the festival, over 50 authors published an open letter calling on the EIBF to end its relationship with Baillie Gifford. In May 2024, the EIBF announced it was doing just that. The Hay Festival, also sponsored by Baillie Gifford, announced the same decision a week earlier. Full disclosure: I was entirely on the side of the authors in the 2023 row and had little time or patience for the arguments of those who opposed them. Certainly not the cultural warriors of the right, who viewed the campaign as a chance to pour scorn on the 'wokerati' – but not even those festival directors and high-placed arts practitioners in the invidious position of having to defend tie-ins with companies such as Baillie Gifford. Grow up, they said, the arts wouldn't exist in their current form without this sort of corporate sponsorship. Really? I'm not so sure. Anyway, if you're right would that be such a bad thing? Fast forward another year and we have just had the launch of the 2025 EIBF. In the absence of Baillie Gifford as a corporate sponsor (a relationship which was always and self-evidently transactional in nature) we now have (cue drum roll) Sir Ian Rankin. As revealed in The Herald, the sainted knight has stepped in – though stepped up might be a better phrase – and agreed to help back the festival financially, along with fellow author Jenny Colgan and other organisations and companies including Edinburgh-based legal firm Digby Brown and privately funded arts charity the Hawthornden Foundation. I'm not saying it was easy to fill the funding gap left by Baillie Gifford, and I don't know how well it has been plugged, but the festival has announced its largest number of events since the pre-pandemic days. Just saying. But don't think this issue is going away. Even as I write this, in Tel Aviv Greta Thunberg is being forced onto a plane, a method of travel she abhors and avoids for conscientious reasons. This is following her detainment while attempting to deliver aid to Gaza aboard UK-flagged humanitarian vessel The Madleen. Greta Thunberg was detained by Israeli authorities while attempting to deliver aid to Gaza (Image: AP) Along with the wider situation in Gaza and the West Bank and the ongoing climate emergency – and as tensions, tempers, emotions and body counts mount – there will be more and more scrutiny by more and more activists of more and more companies and institutions with links to, say, arms sales to Israel or fossil fuels or [insert injustice of your choice]. This will inevitably impact on the UK's arts institution and, as Edinburgh gears up for August, it will be inevitably be felt in Scotland. Actually it already is. A body signing itself the 'Edinburgh International Festivals' was one of the co-signatories supporting a recent open letter by Sir Alistair Spalding and Britannia Morton of London's Sadler's Wells venue published in the Financial Times (ha!). In it the authors complained about the 'relentless negativity' of 'activist groups' such as the one which 'pushed out' Baillie Gifford from its place as a sponsor of the arts. They added: '[P]artnering with businesses ensures our work goes further and has a greater impact. It adds more value and enables growth, ambition and risk taking.' Quoted in The Art Newspaper last week, corporate fundraising expert Martin Prendergast addressed the open letter and said 'the causes are right but the targets are wrong'. But creative producer Naomi Russell had a different take. 'I think protest and resistance drive change and historically this has great precedent,' she told the publication. 'That can be uncomfortable for the powers and established structures.' And so we come full circle: which side are you on? It's a question being asked a lot these days. Think carefully before you answer. Read more: Reel life Do you remember your first time? No not that. I mean the first time you realised there was more to the big screen than the latest James Bond or superhero offering. The first time you had your eyes opened to the kinds of films that maybe did not have car chases or shoot-outs and maybe did have subtitles and which – just as important – were shown in venues dedicated to what you later learned was called 'art-house cinema'. If you don't, I'm sorry. If you do, you'll know why I'm so delighted that Edinburgh's Filmhouse has announced its re-opening date: Friday June 27, just in time for this year's Edinburgh International Film Festival (EIFF) to return to its spiritual home. I was 16 the first time I went to the Filmhouse – in 1982, to see Jean-Jacques Beineix's Diva. It was also the first subtitled film I had ever seen. A little later, still at school, I saw Francis Ford Coppola's 1983 film Rumble Fish. It's still my favourite of his films and definitely in my all-time top five. Matt Dillon in Francis Ford Coppola's 1983 film Rumble Fish (Image: Universal/Criterion) In the same year I also saw director Nicolas Roeg discuss working with Gene Hackman in a Q&A following a screening of Roeg's film Eureka. Many decades later I found myself in my usual spot on the back row of Cinema One and chatting to an older man in the next seat. I told him about my love of the Filmhouse, and about these seminal events in my cinematic life and how vividly I could still remember them. It turned out I was talking to former EIFF director Jim Hickey, who ran the Filmhouse between 1979 and 1993. He was the one on stage interviewing Roeg that night 30 or so years earlier. I could have cried. Him too, probably. It's a very personal story, but it is in no way meaningless because so many people in Edinburgh have similar ones to tell. That's why the Filmhouse's absence since the collapse in 2022 of parent organisation the Centre for the Moving Image has left such a huge hole. Sure there's still work to do to keep Filmhouse 2.0 afloat. But now, thanks to the efforts of those who battled to keep the flame alive, it has returned. Eureka! Read more: And finally The Herald's theatre critic Neil Cooper has been busy recently. His peregrinations have taken him first to Edinburgh's Royal Lyceum where he watched The Mountaintop, a production of Katori Hall's Olivier Award-winning play about Martin Luther King Jr's last night alive. Five stars for that one. Just around the corner at the Traverse Theatre he took in Ramesh Meyyappan's radical reworking of King Lear, then watched the entertaining Meme Girls at Oran Mor in Glasgow, part of the ongoing A Play, A Pie And A Pint season, and hot-footed it to Pitlochry for Nan Shepherd: Naked And Unashamed, the latest chapter in the cult Aberdeenshire writer's move from the margins of literary history to the centre. Elsewhere music critics Keith Bruce and Teddy Jamieson have also been busy, Keith at Glasgow Royal Concert Hall where he heard the Royal Scottish National Orchestra perform 'the mighty juggernaut' that is Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No 11 and Teddy at Glasgow's O2 Academy where he watched Morrissey. A slew of Smiths songs will have pleased many in the audience but Teddy was left wondering who the bequiffed Narcissus is really addressing these days.
