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.

[LowOiL]

You did not answer my question wholly. Would any store be able to sell such items? The fact that Wally World does not sell such items is purely due to public influence of course, but mall stores do not have such scruples.

[Heyworth]

You seem to believe that rights only come from the Constitution, and if it isn't there, it doesn't exist. But the Constitution says "they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...." Now, those rights aren't spelled out in the Bill of Rights, either. Do you suggest that they don't, therefore, exist? Rights exist in mankind, and governments protect them. They don't create them. And 9th Ammendment recognizes that fact. What else would you have it mean? And isn't a woman using a vibrator pursuing happiness?

[Senator Pardek]

The 'law' only stands as a ~regulation~ on commercial buying & selling. [which IS constitutional]

Which is exactly what the law said - no buying and selling of dildos. A stupid law, am I'm glad it was struck down. I just want legislatures to do it instead of judges who make up concepts in the constitution.

[waterstraat]

The Libertarian position is that a citizen can own any inanimate object that he wants, except for weapons of mass destruction, if he can pay for it. Federal law and most states agreed with this principle until the 1900's. The founding fathers never outlawed any weapon or any object, nor did they even think about it.

[AntiGuv]

You did not answer my question wholly. Would any store be able to sell such items?

No.purely due to public influence of course

Of course it is not. This is false. Refer back to my brief explanation of obscenity.

[Senator Pardek]

No level of government has the power to violate that privacy without due process.

Agreed. But again - the law stated you can't sell 'em, said nuttin' about using 'em!

[LowOiL]

The Libertarian position

I am well aware of the LP positions. Big and little L. You can just sum it up as "anarchy" next time.

[tpaine]

And we will just sum up your position as being communitarian.

[Olmstead]

The Arizona laws you cite were repealed and signed by Governor Hull in May 2001. HB 2016 repealed all archaic sex laws in Arizona.

[Dimensio]

I have no idea why you are blabbering on about Libatarians to me.

Isn't it obvious? Only whacko Libertarians believe that the federal government should not be barging in with SWAT teams whenever a sexual act that does not involve two people married to each other in the missionary position with the lights off and the shades closed and no 'toys' of any kind involved.

[Dimensio]

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.

Actually, they may well be sold at WalMart/K-Mart/Target/etc. Many 'vibrators' are sold as 'back massagers' with the only difference being in the packaging.

Of course, those 'back massagers' were still legal under the law.

[Polonius]

You seem to believe that rights only come from the Constitution...

No, I believe that to declare a state law unconstitutional, there must be some article or amendment in the Constitution that applies. In this case, a federal judge invoked the "right to privacy," a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Because I don't believe in judges imposing their ideology from the bench, I can't agree with this decision.

[Polonius]

The 9th is clear english. So are my words.

You merely cited the 9th. How, exactly, does that justify striking down a state law based on the "right to privacy," unless you're claiming that this amendment gives federal judges the right to find and enforce new, unenumerated rights? Furthermore, from where do you derive an inalienable right to privacy that the government is bound to respect? If you're speaking of the right invented by the federal judiciary, it's clear from precedent that it's anything but inalienable.

[tpaine]

It is self evident 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.

It's mind boggling that you would challenge such a basic principle of your own individual rights.
Do YOU have any idea why you're being irrational?

[Polonius]

I'm not being irrational, I'm asking for the reasoning behind your assertion. Do you base your assertion of an inalienable right to privacy on natural rights, common law or some other grounds? In a very general, theoretical sense, I do agree that there should be a right to privacy (though it is actually a biproduct of the right to property), but I'm asking you on what legal or philosophical basis the government is bound to recognize that right, beyond your say-so. If it is so self-evident that the government, on all levels, should recognize this right, you should have no problem explaining the reason they must do so.

[Skywalk]

You tell 'im, PL. In fact, this is something that would spur even lefties to wage an armed insurrection against the oppressive hand of government.

heh, heh. I said "hand."

[Fraulein]

Nice to know that it is at least possible for the government to un-ban things.

[Zon]

Last time I checked all sorts of body parts can be used as sex toys for, as the article states, "the stimulation of human genital organs."

[TomB]

[that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].

Do you REALLY believe this? That if I SAY something offensive toward Christianity, I have committed a crime?

[tpaine]

"I do agree that there should be a right to privacy (though it is actually a biproduct of the right to property), but I'm asking you on what legal or philosophical basis the government is bound to recognize that right, beyond your say-so. If it is so self-evident that the government, on all levels, should recognize this right, you should have no problem explaining the reason they must do so."

Because, 'we the people' in our constitution, limited our governments to the powers so delegated. - See the 10th, and 14th amendments.