KEVIN TEETS

ATTORNEY AT LAW

September 18, 2017

Kevin W. Teets Jr.

Law Offices of Kevin Teets
P.O. Box 22389 #67686
Nashville,IN 37202-2389

Mr. David Amonette

City Attorney for Portland, TN
100 South Russell Street
Portland, TN 37148
Sent Via Fax to: 615.325.1807

Re: Notice of intent to file suit against the city of Portland and to request injunction if
legislative body passes Ordinance No. 17-159

Mr. Amonette,

I am writing you today to inform you that I represent the Tennessee Equality Project and
individuals who have previously performed in drag in the city ofPortland and who plan to
perform in drag again at the same or similar location within the commercial district ofthe city.

In writing you, and copying the Board of Alderman, I am making a demand that the
amendment to the combined zoning ordinance of the City of Portland be immediately withdrawn
from consideration as the amendment discriminately targets and infringes upon speech that is the
exact type of speech the first amendment of the State of Tennessee and the United States
Constitution protects. Ordinance No. 17-159, is a content-based restriction on expression that
violates the plain language of Article I, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution guaranteeing
that "every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject"(emphasis added).

In this case, the Board is taking action because of the content of expression, i.e., the fact
that drag performances are happening. It is worth noting that while the Tennessee Supreme Court
has recognized that "all basic rights of free speech are subject to reasonable regulation." State v.
Smoky Mt. Secrets. Inc.. 937 S.W.2d 905. 910(Tenn. 1996){quoting H & L Messengers Inc. v.
City ofBrentwood. 577 S.W.2d444. 451 CTenn. 197911. in each of tliose cases there was
evidence put into the record concerning the secondary effects doctrine. Here, however, it is
impossible for one drag show once a month to have any secondary effects to Main Street, except
that people are "upset," and it is impossible for the city to have jurisdiction over this matter but
for the passing of this unconstitutional ordinance.