Okay, so this immensely popular fellow from American Idol, Adam Lambert, did a highly sex-charged performance at the American Music Awards last night. Gay sex-charged. The performance included "dance" moves that included simulated oral sex and tongue-to-tongue lip locks with Lambert's fellow (fellow) dancers.
Public simulated sex acts (gay or heterosexual) are against the law here in Rapid City, even in licensed Adult Oriented Businesses like Shotgun Willies. See Section T of the code here. Such acts are permitted, apparently on prime time network television.
What do we learn from this? Not much we didn't know before. Censorship does not work. Rapid City, in 2002, fell all over itself to stop something that today takes place on prime time television and the city council is powerless to stop it there.
The American Music Awards have been the venue for some controversial stuff: Michael Jackson's crotch-grabbing performance of Billie Jean; Madonna's French kiss of Brittany Spears; and now this.
America was shocked at all of them. And, sometimes that is what art is designed to do. In the case of Michael Jackson's performance, even the most jaded wingnut would have difficulty in claiming that performance was not art. From my perspective, the Madonna thing was absolutely not art and the Lambert thing, if art, did not approach the quality of the Jackson performance.
So, am I offended that Lambert is an out-of-the-closet gay? No. Am I offended that Lambert's performance featured simulated gay oral sex? No. Am I offended that he tongue kissed one of his male dancers? No. I didn't watch it. I exercised my right to tune into something else.
As it turns out, Dick Clark Entertainment (which produces the AMA) says it was unaware Lambert's performance would include the controversial acts. So there was no ability to warn the audience about the content.
I know some of the radical religious right will claim that The First Amendment does not protect simulated gay sex acts in prime time on government-owned airwaves. And, my answer is that the First Amendment was not adopted to protect popular speech. And, if it doesn't protect Lambert's rights, it doesn't protect yours either.
What say you, Forumpians?