Alabama ban on sex toys is struck down as unconstitutional

Associated Press | October 11, 2002

[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.

[gitmo]

So you maintain that the Constitution has reserved for the government the right to invade individual privacy? Where do you see that. What I see, in Article IX is that those rights not specifically delegated to the government are reserved and protected for the people.

[MonroeDNA]

I agree with the guy.

[billbears]

Were our founders "Nannys" for establishing these laws to protect morality?

No they weren't. Isn't it interesting that no one had a problem with these laws and the enforcement of these laws for the most part until the more 'enlightened' second half of the 20th century? Apparently the Constitution was not the founding document of this nation of states prior to 1960. Else that or the men in the state legislatures, on the benches, and in the federal offices realized what Adams said was true

BTW, thanks for the quotes

[AAABEST]

Dear Mr/Mrs Scary Person;

You are one silly soul with an extremely twisted view of our founding documents and the concept of liberty.

I tried like hell to see how on God's earth one could possibly make a nexus between the quotes of our founding fathers and banning a woman from using a battery operated vibrator, but I just couldn't for the life of me make that connection.

Where do you people come up with this crap like this? It's comforting to know you're wasting time with these lengthly posts devoted to the evils of dildos, anything to keep you out of trouble.

[MotleyGirl70]

IMHO...

I just don't understand why this is such a big deal. It's nobody's business, government, courts or otherwise what I do in my bedroom. Prudes can be prudes but don't preach your prudeness to me.

[BlazingArizona]

Forgive me, but why was there a move to ban sex toys to begin with?

It's for the chiiiiiiildren!

[Polonius]

I can't agree that the 9th amendment is a blank check allowing the judiciary to create new constitutionally-protected rights out of thin air, which seems to be essentially what you are both arguing. That interpretation leaves the door open for future judges to discover "rights" to free health care, guaranteed employment and any number of other radical departures from the actual text of the Constitution.

The 9th amendment is important in affirming that rights are not limited to those specified in the Bill of Rights, but it cannot be logically construed to mean that judges have carte blanche to declare whatever strikes their fancy as a "right," especially when it involves areas of law that clearly fall to the states.

[BlazingArizona]

Do you really believe that Patrick Henry and Jon Quincy Adams would have been moved to ban vibrators? I think they would have been more likely to have inveighed against Ye New Twenty-First Century Busybody.

[LowOiL]

Prudes can be prudes but don't preach your prudeness to me.

Does that mean we have NO say in strap-on slings, rubber dinglelings, blow-up things, fake smile beauty queens, and pictures of other things?

Seriously though, is it preaching when any morality issues come up and someone disagrees. If it is, you can count on me taking the "prudeness" name with pride on this issue.

[BlazingArizona]

You never got a date for your high school prom, did you?

[gitmo]

The 9th amendment is important in affirming that rights are not limited to those specified in the Bill of Rights, but it cannot be logically construed to mean that judges have carte blanche to declare whatever strikes their fancy as a "right," especially when it involves areas of law that clearly fall to the states.

Then how did they intend those rights to be established? Certainly not through additional ammendments, else this one would be unneeded.

The argument about free health care and guaranteed employment is specious. Those "rights" would involve forcing other people to give up their rights to support these. (Removal of property to pay for the medical care, forcing an individual to hire and pay another.)

That's exactly why I maintain that a right to privacy does not imply a right to abortion. The rights of the unborn child are completely eliminated in order to grant one right to the parent.

[AxelPaulsen]

Why post a pic of Hitlery? She doesn't need sex toys, she has Janet Reno.

[AntiGuv]

Of course it doesn't. The government (i.e. the "we" which you're not any part of since you're off in the tiniest of fringe minorities) has a say on obscenity. In order for something to be 'obscene' then it must come into contact with someone who would find it obscene. Seen the dildos in question will not likely come into contact with anyone who did not freely choose to contact a dildo, then they are outside this realm.

[AntiGuv]

sigh seen = since

[LowOiL]

In order for something to be 'obscene' then it must come into contact with someone who would find it obscene.

The judge did not stipulate (as far as I can determine) that such item be limited to just sex stores. That opens the can of worms that this item can be sold/displayed in a Walmart/Kmart/Target/grocery store environment. I think that would satisfy the "contact with someone who would find it obscene" issue. I know it would for me.

[185JHP]

At least they tried. "Singing songs about (what's good about) the Southland"...

[AntiGuv]

No, I'm afraid you're characteristically wrong. 49 other states do not ban the sale of dildos (50 states prior 1998) and I have yet to see a dildo in a Walmart, Kmart, Target, or Harris Teeter.

[the_rightside]

... and I thought the South was going to rise again.

[Polonius]

New amendments are exactly how new constitutional rights should be established; the alternative flies in the face of the constitutional order by allowing one man (or five, if you take it to the Supreme Court) to create new rights, rather than having those rights approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures as intended.

Also, considering that so many judges on the bench today are welfare liberals, you're quite incorrect in calling my examples "specious." If a constitutional right is whatever they determine to be in "the people's" interest, why wouldn't they follow their ideological inclinations (in other words, the doctrine of "positive freedom" and all it implies) in creating those new rights?

[tpaine]

I can't agree that the 9th amendment is a blank check allowing the judiciary to create new constitutionally-protected rights out of thin air, which seems to be essentially what you are both arguing.

Not at all. That's a straw man you claim I'm arguing. The 9th is clear english. So are my words.

That interpretation leaves the door open for future judges to discover "rights" to free health care, guaranteed employment and any number of other radical departures from the actual text of the Constitution. The 9th amendment is important in affirming that rights are not limited to those specified in the Bill of Rights, but it cannot be logically construed to mean that judges have carte blanche to declare whatever strikes their fancy as a "right," especially when it involves areas of law that clearly fall to the states.

Nice rant. Doesn't change the fact that we have an inalienable right to privacy in our homes. No level of government has the power to violate that privacy without due process.