Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB 249 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears emotional testimony and local examples as members consider HB 249 (Indecent Exposure Modernization Act)
Summary
Proponents told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 249 would close legal loopholes they say allowed explicit performances or public exposures in parks and facilities where minors were present. Witnesses cited local incidents, including a Xenia YMCA locker-room case, and urged the committee to advance the bill.
Supporters of House Bill 249 told the Ohio House Judiciary Committee the bill would clarify what constitutes indecent exposure and apply existing obscenity standards to public performances that occur outside adult‑only venues when children may be present.
Jason King, a Celina pastor and city‑council member, described a local pride event that included a drag show he characterized as "filled with obscene gestures" and said vendors sold sexually suggestive items in a park with children present. "This goes well beyond the stated purpose of the organizing group," he said, urging the committee to "take swift action to enact this bill in order to protect our children."
David Mahan of the Center for Christian Virtue told the committee HB 249 "does not ban strip clubs, drag shows, or any of the sort" but said it would apply Ohio’s existing obscenity and pandering standards to public performances and close what he described as loopholes that allowed inappropriate conduct in public spaces; he invoked a Xenia YMCA case in which, he said, a court’s interpretation led to an outcome he characterized as an unacceptable loophole.
Multiple community members — including Kelly Lunenburg, Pastor Van Holloway, Janelle Holloway and Sean Meyer — recounted incidents they said exposed children to adult performances or showed the criminal-justice response as inadequate. Janelle Holloway described seeing a man she identified by name in a women’s locker room and said charges brought in municipal court resulted in an acquittal; she said the experience "forever changed" her life.
Committee members asked proponents about the bill’s scope, whether it would affect mainstream performers, how the bill defines "private area" in contrast with current statutory language, and why penalties in the bill can be higher than existing public indecency penalties. Proponents answered that the bill intends to apply the current definition of obscenity to performances in public and to supply clearer statutory language to prevent similar judicial interpretations in the future. The chair concluded the hearing after noting additional written proponent testimony on members’ iPads.
