Lawmaker seeks to ban government funding, hosting of ‘obscene performances’ — without clear examples

Language dropped into an unrelated bill in a House committee Wednesday bans state and local government units from hosting or funding “obscene performances.”

The provision’s author couldn’t provide examples of what he’s trying to ban in the language added to SB 326.

State law says a performance is obscene if: the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest in sex; if the performance depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and if it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Rep. Chris Jeter (R-Fishers), the language’s author, was asked repeatedly by both lawmakers and Indiana Public Broadcasting for examples, and whether he had anything specific in mind.

He said no.

“I’ve heard about it in other places and seen some things in other states and I just want to make sure that we make it really clear that here, those are not going to be public events,” Jeter said.

Indiana Public Broadcasting asked Jeter what sort of performances he was concerned about.

“Just performances that are sexual in nature or that appeal to those types of interests that are not appropriate for minors,” Jeter said.

Asked specifically whether his language aims to target drag story times at public libraries — where performers in drag read to children — Jeter said he doesn’t know. He said it’s a case-by-case basis and up to communities to decide.

Join the conversation and sign up for our weekly text group: the Indiana Two-Way. Your comments and questions help us find the answers you need on statewide issues, including our project Civically, Indiana and our 2025 bill tracker.

Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington) voted against Jeter’s amendment and said he doesn’t think any government is going to fund or host an obscene performance.

“But putting it in, I think, suggests that we think people are,” Pierce said. “Which I think is an affront to anyone who’s running a governmental entity in this state.”

Rep. Mitch Gore (D-Indianapolis) said he thinks the intent of Jeter’s amendment is to have a chilling effect on performances that people “just personally don’t like.”

“I don’t want to support an amendment that might have a chilling effect on people’s constitutionally-protected speech,” Gore said.

The bill is headed to the House floor.

Brandon is our Statehouse bureau chief. Contact him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at @brandonjsmith5.