Skip to comments.
Alabama ban on sex toys is struck down as unconstitutional
Associated Press
| October 11, 2002
Posted on 10/11/2002 1:29:58 PM PDT by HAL9000
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) -- An Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys was struck down by a federal judge as a violation of the right to privacy. "The fundamental right of privacy, long recognized by the Supreme Court as inherent among our constitutional protections, incorporates a right to sexual privacy,'' U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. said Wednesday.
He said the state did not prove it has a legitimate interest in banning the sale of sex devices for use in private, consensual relationships between adults.
The 1998 law -- part of a package of legislation strengthening the state's obscenity law -- banned the sale of devices designed for "the stimulation of human genital organs.'' It was challenged by six women who either sell sex aids or said they need them for sexual gratification.
Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; sextoys
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-222 next last
To: Britton J Wingfield
If you had come into my bedroom to arrest me for getting a bj from my girlfriend, you would have left in a bag. Natural reaction to unexpected surprise is to clinch one's teeth. A small bag might be handy.
101
posted on
10/11/2002 4:46:26 PM PDT
by
LowOiL
To: flyervet
This is worth repeating!
Just so you know, you don't have to be a Libertarian to think that police have better things to do than haunt dark roads in search of horny teenagers.
To: Britton J Wingfield
Maybe there was a shortage at the time and they thought that 3 should be good enough even for the horniest chick?
To: Britton J Wingfield
wow
To: FF578 The Crimes Against Nature (Sodomy Law) is a felony in North Carolina, and it is used a lot in law enforcement. Come into my bedroom and try to arrest me for getting a blow job from my wife and you will be leaving in a bag. 56 posted on 10/11/02 5:37 PM Eastern by Phantom Lord [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Lowelljr
Heh, I must admit that is a good one.
To: Cacique
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I think I would have to disagree with you that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Amendment IX guarantees all rights not specifically reserved to the government in the Constitution. It obviously doesn't justify killing another (unborn) person, but I think we should defend a right to privacy.
106
posted on
10/11/2002 5:09:08 PM PDT
by
gitmo
To: Senator Pardek
"Just think about all of the counties in the U.S. where it's illegal to buy booze. Ludicrous also, but perfectly constitutional." - SP
These local prohibitionary type laws are only 'legal' because they are never challenged to the upper courts on constitutional grounds. [just as per the sex toy 'law']
Lets say I live in a dry county and get some mail order wine delivered to my residence.
-- Can the sheriff bust the mailman? - Nope. Not constitutionally.
-- Can he bust me for having bought it from my own house? - Nope. Not Constitutional.
-- Can the cops bust me for possession? Nope - unconstitutional.
The 'law' only stands as a ~regulation~ on commercial buying & selling. [which IS constitutional]
- Not as a prohibition on an individual right.
107
posted on
10/11/2002 5:20:43 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: gitmo
"... I think we should defend a right to privacy."
I don't, unless someone wants to propose a new Constitutional amendment creating one. Whether you agree or disagree with the law, it should be clear that declaring it unconstitutional is a flagrant usurpation of states' rights. In essence, it's one federal judge striking down a state law based on a filmsy pretense because he finds it disagreeable. Such legislating from the bench shouldn't stand.
To: Polonius
"I think we should defend a right to privacy."
I don't, unless someone wants to propose a new Constitutional amendment creating one.
_________________________________
No need:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
109
posted on
10/11/2002 6:18:20 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: FF578
"Every Single State had laws banning Pornography. Every Single State had laws banning homosexuality, sodomy, fornication, adultery, and blasphemy." So what? It doesn't mean that they were right. Our founders, while good people all, weren't perfect. Many of them owned slaves. That wasn't right.
Additionally, when Adams said morality it wasn't sex he was talking about. Who's more moral, an honest legislator that has fun with his wife and a dildo, or a corrupt one that does it in the missionary position? Besides, you never did answer my question. Some religons believe dancing is immoral. Should we make it illegal?
110
posted on
10/11/2002 6:19:09 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: FF578
You know shakespeare said "Brevity is the soul of wit."
You really doth protest too much.
111
posted on
10/11/2002 6:25:49 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: billhilly
In Alabama a sex toy is a pair of overalls with the pockets cut out
LOL and bares repeating.
112
posted on
10/11/2002 6:26:54 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: HAL9000
Smith could barely be heard over the sound of his viabrator while rendering his opinion.
To: FF578
"I find it amazing that there seems to be so many of them on the internet,"
That's because they're generally smarter than the general population. I've yet to meet a poor libertarian who works at McDonalds.
114
posted on
10/11/2002 6:33:33 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: Lowelljr
"If some weirdo wants to screw a FAKE chicken in the privacy of his own home, whats it to you? Where do you draw the line? Should they be able to sell blow up little boys too?
Frictionless Slope
115
posted on
10/11/2002 6:36:06 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: amused; HAL9000
LOL....second time I'm brought to tears today. You couldn't have had a more appropriate photo.Dildo, oops I mean Ditto.
To: FF578
I prefer the Crimes against nature Charge for prostitutes that I can show used oral sex and for unmarried people "Parking." You are correct that most officers charge Indecent Exposure instead of CAN when it comes to unmarried "Parking" and most use G.S. 14-204 when charging prostitutes. I don't.
I prefer the felony charge
You probably get YOUR jollies off arresting some boyfriend-girlfriend for "parking". You think your some kind of avenging angel or something....sick. I don't think people engaging in sex on public property is so great, but a FELONY????
As an LEO you know what a felony does to someone for the rest of their lives. Jesus.
You're sick. That's not the act of a true Chrsitian.
117
posted on
10/11/2002 6:41:43 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: Britton J Wingfield
ROFLMAO!
118
posted on
10/11/2002 6:44:10 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: flyervet
NC is full of self-righteous religeous nutcases.
To: jjm2111
Chrsitian. = Christian.
120
posted on
10/11/2002 6:47:00 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-222 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson