US Court Rejects Appeal on Ban on Sex Toy Sale

Reuters ^ | 02/22/05 | James Vicini

[Phantom Lord]

US Court Rejects Appeal on Ban on Sex Toy Sale

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rejected on Tuesday a constitutional challenge to an Alabama law that makes it a crime to sell sex toys.

The high court refused to hear an appeal by a group of individuals who regularly use sexual devices and by two vendors who argued the case raised important issues about the scope of the constitutional right to sexual privacy.

The law prohibited the distribution of "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." First-time violators can face a fine of up to $10,000 and as much as one year in jail.

The law, adopted in 1998, allowed the sale of ordinary vibrators and body massagers that are not designed or marketed primarily as sexual aids. It exempted sales of sexual devices "for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purpose."

Georgia and Texas are the only other states that restrict the distribution of sexual devices, according to the court record in the case.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, representing those who challenged the law, argued that private, consensual sexual conduct among adults is constitutionally protected and beyond the reach of government regulation.

They said the Supreme Court's decision in 2003 striking down a Texas sodomy law also created a fundamental, constitutional due process right to sexual privacy.

"The evidence shows that this case is not about novelty items, naughty toys or obscene matter. It is a case about human sexuality and extremely intimate acts," the attorneys said.

They said Alabama has never explained "why sales of performance enhancing drugs like Viagra, Cialis and Levitra and even ribbed condoms are not similarly prohibited."

The attorneys said the state did not contest the evidence that about 20 percent of all American women use a vibrator and at least 10 percent of sexually active adults use vibrators in their regular sex life.

A federal judge ruled against the state and found a constitutional "right to use sexual devices like ... vibrators, dildos, anal beads and artificial vaginas."

But a U.S. appeals court based in Atlanta upheld the law by a 2-1 vote.

The appeals court said it agreed with Alabama that the law exercised time-honored use of state police power to restrict the sale of sex. It rejected the ACLU's argument that the constitutional right to privacy covered the commercial sale of sex toys.

Alabama Attorney General Troy King opposed the ACLU's appeal.

"This case involves conduct that is both public and commercial -- the sale of sexual devices to the general public in commercial retail shopping centers" and at in-house Tupperware-style parties, he said.

King said the law respected "the distinction between public commercial conduct and purely private behavior." He said, "It ... stays out of people's bedrooms."

The justices rejected the appeal without any comment or recorded dissent.

[Phantom Lord]

This should cause an arousing discussion.

[Paradox]

C'mon folks, stand up and be counted!

I guess I am all up for states rights, but sheesh..

[Conspiracy Guy]

I'll comment when I get back from Mississippi. Dang!

[Smedley]

A federal judge ruled against the state and found a constitutional "right to use sexual devices like ... vibrators, dildos, anal beads and artificial vaginas."

I guess this is written in the 69th amendment?

[DM1]

"It exempted sales of sexual devices "for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purpose." "
I want to see what kind of sexual device is used for Law Enforcement purposes - freeze! dont make me use this vibrator!!

[Publius Scipio]

The law prohibited the distribution of "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.

On what basis?

[MisterRepublican]

"...the case raised important issues about the scope of the constitutional right to sexual privacy."

The Constitution doesn't mention a right "sexual privacy" as far as I know.

[TheBigB]

I love my home state, but jeeminee. WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS??

[Smedley]

Look, I'm all for people using whatever inanimate objects they want in the privacy of their bedrooms.

I just don't think that it's a Constitutional right.

[TheBigB]

P.J. sez..."from my cold, dead...well, you get the idea."

PING to the REPUBLICAN PARTY REPTILE ping list! What is the Republican Party Reptile? It is a creature of the eighties. It's neoconservatism with its pants down around its ankles, the Rehnquist Supreme Court on drugs, a disco Hobbes living without shame or federally mandated safety regulations. The Republican Party Reptile supports a strong defense policy, but sees no reason to conduct it while sober. The RPR believes in minimum government interference in private affairs; unless the government brings over extra girls and some ice. In short, the RPR is the new label that our political spectrum has been crying out for; the conservative with a sense of humor and a healthy dose of depravity.

[conserv13]

That is a good question - why isn't viagra banned? Its a sexual aid. Also, the exemptions for 'legitimate medical purpose' - that is pretty vague.

[cjshapi]

Damn, some of the folks in your state are no fun!

[Paradox]

I just don't think that it's a Constitutional right.

Its not, but it does point out that there are some boneheaded lawmakers in Alabama.. that and perhaps a lazy populace.

[Durus]

If you cared at all about freedom, or understood the basic concept of a constitutional republic, you would know that to have a right it doesn't need to written in the constitution. The constitution was written to delineate the powers of government. A better question would be "where does government have the enumerated power to ban sex toys".

[Modernman]

The law prohibited the distribution of "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." First-time violators can face a fine of up to $10,000 and as much as one year in jail.

I'm glad that Alabama has solved all of its other problems and can now focus on keeping chicks from enjoying their battery-operated buddy.

[Fierce Allegiance]

I can't legally buy fireworks in CT, but I manage to get 'em. I'm sure these people can figure out a way to get their fake wanker yankers and canyon probes.

[malakhi]

On what basis?

Abject horror that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time.

[Modernman]

A better question would be "where does government have the enumerated power to ban sex toys".

DING DING DING. No more calls, we have a winner.

[conserv13]

The 9th Amendment is pretty vague, but you could argue that it applies here.

[Smedley]

The constitution was written to delineate the powers of government. A better question would be "where does government have the enumerated power to ban sex toys".

States have always had an inherent right to police and regulatory powers. Whether or not they should outlaw selling sex toys is a political issue, not a constitutional issue. I'm not siding with alabama on this, merely stating that the Constitution is not a panacea protecting the sale and distribution of dildos