76° and Sunny
Lounsbury Campaigns with False Advertising
In her second attempt to unseat Ohio House representative Andrea White, Rose Lounsbury posted an ad early last month on her campaign's Facebook and Instagram pages, in which she attacks her opponent and the Ohio Republican Party for backing Ohio House Bill HB 249, which the House recently passed. This bill is best known for seeking to prohibit sexualized drag queen and other graphic adult performances in public settings.
In her ad, Mrs. Lounsbury claims HB 249 would “ban Mrs. Doubtfire” from being shown or performed and “make it a felony, actually, to dress like a member of the opposite sex”. She sarcastically questioned if HB 249’s backers would make a citizen’s arrest at this month’s performance of Mrs. Doubtfire at the Schuster Center, and she criticized Representative White and the Ohio GOP for prioritizing “banning Mrs. Doubtfire” over more pressing issues facing Ohioans. In comments beneath her ad, she also affirmed claims that HB 249 would ban performances of Shakespearean plays with males playing female characters, and Hairspray and Chicago among other theatrical classics.
I reviewed HB 249, and if these claims sound too outlandish to be true, it's because they are blatantly false. I don't think Mrs. Lounsbury would deliberately make false statements in her campaign, but that leaves only two explanations: either she didn't bother to read the bill before releasing her ad, or her reading of the legislation was astonishingly careless and inept, especially for someone campaigning to serve as a legislator. Either way, it gives little confidence she would properly perform those basic responsibilities of the office she is running for, which will often involve legislation substantially more complex than HB 249. If elected, her constituents would rightfully expect her to competently review and understand pending legislation before taking a public position or voting on it, and to communicate about it accurately to her district.
Nowhere in HB 249 does it make it a crime merely to dress like the opposite sex. The bill prohibits “adult cabaret performance(s)” in settings other than adult venues or other exempt locations where minors may be present, such as in public. While that term does include performances involving cross dressing along with nude and other adult performances, the bill only prohibits such performances under limited conditions; most importantly, they must be “harmful to juveniles” or “obscene”, as those terms are defined in an Ohio sex crime statute (RC 2907.01) (see HB 249, lines 153-155; 174-175).
Go read those terms in RC 2907.01 (Paragraphs (E) and (F)); they refer to extremely graphic, salacious adult content that virtually no one would deem acceptable for public display in front of children – nothing like Mrs. Doubtfire or those other classic works mentioned beneath Mrs. Lounsbury’s ad. For example, they apply to highly explicit sexual material that: involves nudity or graphic depictions of sexual acts without any serious literary, artistic, scientific or educational value; or has a predominant appeal of inciting sexual arousal or sexual interest that is “prurient” (unhealthy or shameful under prevailing community standards). Neither Mrs. Doubtfire nor any of those other works contain such explicit content to my knowledge, but if they did, they are hardly lacking in serious literary or artistic value; they are widely performed, highly acclaimed theatrical or literary works. I’m also quite certain that sexual arousal or unhealthy sexual interest are not their predominant audience appeal, least of all Mrs. Doubtfire’s character.
In case it wasn’t obvious enough that HB 249 would not criminalize Mrs. Doubtfire or those other works simply for including some element of cross dressing, the bill’s drafters went out of their way to make that clear with a provision explicitly stating that the prohibition of adult cabaret performances will not apply to “any bona fide film, theatrical, or other artistic endeavor or performance that is not obscene or harmful to juveniles”. Mrs. Doubtfire and those other celebrated works are unquestionably bona fide films and theatrical performances (see HB 249, lines 320-323).
Perhaps most striking about her ad is that it completely ignores the obvious, true focus of HB 249: to prevent displays of sexually graphic, patently obscene adult performances in public areas where children may be exposed to them without their parents’ prior knowledge or consent. Why? Does she see nothing wrong with that, and if so, is the “Mrs. Doubtfire” angle meant to distract from that larger reason for her opposition to the bill?
If Mrs. Lounsbury believes that exposing children to such performances in public without their parents’ knowledge or consent is perfectly acceptable, then she should be transparent about it. But that would likely reveal that her position on this issue is at odds with the prevailing views and values of the district she’s campaigning to represent. It might behoove her to recall that in her previous unsuccessful campaign for this House seat, she herself was the subject of a scathing ad from her opponent, based partially on her support for allowing transgender-identifying biological males to compete in female sports. Apparently, taking the 20% side of 80/20 social issues is not a winning campaign strategy. (Full version of this letter is available here).
-Trevor F. Hoffmann
