The prosecutor for Tennessee’s Blount County is threatening a local Pride event planned for this weekend, Law Dork has learned, asserting that he intends to enforce the state’s new anti-drag law despite a federal court ruling elsewhere in the state that the law is unconstitutional.
That is not at all surprising, given the nature and potential effects of Desmond’s three-page memorandum regarding the Adult Entertainment Act (AEA) — the formal name of the anti-drag law passed in Tennessee earlier this year.
Through the letter, Desmond, the district attorney general for the 5th Judicial District (Blount County) of Tennessee, has also informed three law enforcement heads — the county sheriff and two police chiefs — of his plans regarding the law. The move both empowers law enforcement to investigate alleged violations of the law and chills the the speech and expressive activities of anyone in Blount County under Desmond’s jurisdiction.
The threat from Desmond comes nearly three months after a federal judge elsewhere in Tennessee struck down the law. In a case out of Shelby County challenging the AEA, U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker, a Trump appointee, declared on June 2 that the AEA “is an unconstitutional restriction on speech.”
In fact, it’s hard for me to imagine a more clear example of a public official intending to create a “chilling effect” on speech — particularly given the history of law enforcement abuse of LGBTQ people — than a prosecutor literally sending a letter to law enforcement, pride organizers, and the entities that run the space where the pride event is being held asserting that he is concerned that that event “may violate” a new criminal law and that he intends to prosecute alleged violations of that law — particularly where that law has already been declared unconstitutional elsewhere in the state.
Finally, if that weren’t enough, Desmond closes with a paragraph addressing the possibility of “protestors and counter-protestors” at Blount Pride. For the first time in his three-page letter, only then does Desmond mention either the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment — highlighting everyone’s right to protest and claiming, again for the first time in the letter, that “the Blount County District Attorney’s Office has great respect and deference to individuals’ constitutional rights.”
Even here, though, it’s notable that, while acknowledging that protestors would be subject to prosecution for “assault, vandalism, criminal trespassing, and disorderly conduct,” Desmond is raising this in a “both sides” way by framing the entire paragraph — both the rights and limitations — as being about “protestors and counter-protestors” present there.