Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nova; robertpaulsen
Are you really contending that a ban would be within their rights even if no ill effect can be shown to actually exist?

South Carolina's obscenity laws already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials, this bill simply adds stimulation devices to that list.

In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled to define obscene as something "contemporary community standards" determine as "patently offensive" sexual conduct, which "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

SC, like other states that have already done so, has the right to ban these products. Obscenity does have ill effects even if some refuse to see it.

Personally, I don't care about this law one way or the other. Any ban in SC has little effect since there ain't no place in SC that isn't a short 2 hour drive from the state line.

285 posted on 04/23/2006 9:14:40 PM PDT by Between the Lines (Be careful how you live your life, it may be the only gospel anyone reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies ]


To: Between the Lines

I would think that anything deemed "obscene" would be something that is displayed in public. I wonder why some states want to regulate what is private? I can certainly understand the public advertising and display or use of such a device, but until they start putting cameras in peoples' private bedrooms, this is a sick joke of a law.


322 posted on 04/24/2006 7:24:58 AM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson