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.

[Dead Corpse]

It really burns me that anyone can still hold that kind of moralistic superiority after seeing what has happened to moral despots and the extremes they will take their jihads.

I am a faithful and loving husband to my wife, and it didn't take some Ms. Grundy a$$hole forcing me to be.

If people like FF really want to do something to increase the number of "moral" people in the world? Raise your kids the right way. Instill your values in them and lead by example.

Anything else and they're liable to get their teeth kicked in.

[FeliciaCat]

POST #56

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

[FF578]

Libertarians always talk big. They always say garbage like "Come try to get my drugs and you will leave in a body bag."

Yet I always see them leaving in handcuffs.

What is so amusing is that libertarians really think that if they are going to be raided for breaking a law that it is going to be a single LEO knocking on the door.

More likely it is going to be a trained tactical team with Flashbangs, AR-15s in Full Tactical gear.

I have yet to see a drug raid where the dealers even knew what hit them.

If an LEO Is going to serve a warrant it is going to be done right.

[FF578]

So our founders were despots? Our Founders were Nannys? Our founders were big government thugs?

[LowOiL]

In fact I think it would be a GOOD thing if people (ADULTS) got off more and if the only way they can is by self/artificial stimulation, then so be it.

Click "HERE" to see if Larry Flint's Daughter agrees with you

Sex is a wonderful God created thing. Distortion of the perfect thing God created is not as Tonya Flynt-Vega would tell you was a "good thing". Read the article and see for yourself. Your comments seem very simular to Mr. Pervert Flint almost word by word.

[FF578]

The libertarians think they have a "right" to do whatever they want. They have a "Right" to have sex outside of wedlock, They have a "Right" to smoke dope, They have a "Right" to disregard law.

Funny thing is though, they disregard law and they still get locked up. They cry about their "Rights" like any other criminal, but for some reason the judges don't see it their way.

Libertarians are really on the fringe.

I find it amazing that there seems to be so many of them on the internet, yet the only get 0.036% of the vote when it comes election time.

What gives? :)

[Heyworth]

More likely it is going to be a trained tactical team with Flashbangs, AR-15s in Full Tactical gear.

Do you think that this should be the treatment for a husband and wife having oral sex in their bedroom, then? Do you think this is an effective use of policed resources--SWAT raids of married couples' bedrooms instead of, oh, I dunno, catching terrorists? And if they shoot them thinking that they might have had a gun instead of, say, a sex toy in their hands, well, they were lawbreakers and deserved what they got, right? If you're going to equate private sexual behavior with the WOD, this is what you're saying, right?

I'm already imagining the TV commercials they'll spend our tax dollars on: "If you get a blowjob from your wife, you're supporting terrorists."

[FeliciaCat]

WHATEVER!!!!!!!!!!

Do not insult me by comparing me to Flynt. You don't know anything about me other then what YOU WANT TO THINK about me. Just because I don't buy into your religious beliefs does not mean I am some sexual deviant. I'm probably straighter laced then you are. Get off your moral high-horse.

[FeliciaCat]

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

[LowOiL]

Do not insult me by comparing me to Flynt.

I don't think you quite compare to Flynt right now. Flynt brags about molesting a chicken in his book. But then again, perhaps now one can buy a rubber chicken to do whatever you want in your own home.

[FeliciaCat]

If some weirdo wants to screw a FAKE chicken in the privacy of his own home, whats it to you?

[AntiGuv]

"The Crimes Against Nature (Sodomy Law) is a felony in North Carolina, and it is used a lot in law enforcement." To my knowledge, this is untrue. This matter was debated just last session in the legislature. The CAN law is used only in cases that involve rape, minors, or military personnel and has no useful purpose even in such circumstances because other laws or regulations cover the same activities. The entire rationale for not overturning CAN is because it's not enforced against any consenting adults outside a military setting and so can simply serve as a moral instruction from the state.

[LowOiL]

If some weirdo wants to screw a FAKE chicken in the privacy of his own home, whats it to you?

That weirdo used live chickens. It was not fake, read his book, I have a feeling you will get a kick out of it.

[LowOiL]

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?

[AntiGuv]

You make it sound as if North Carolina would seriously sanction enforcement of the CAN law against consenting adults, and this is utterly false - and I'm sure you know that. The legislature knows as well as you and I that the first casualty of such an attempted enforcement would be the overturning of the CAN law itself.

[AntiGuv]

Funny thing is, though, that in North Carolina where you serve as a LEO and where I've practiced law, there's no question that people are assumed to have the 'right' to sex outside of wedlock. There's no doubt that such people will not get "locked up" despite the millions of presumed violations. Here you are dissembling in a mendacious attempt to suggest that such laws are enforced or that anyone takes them seriously when that is demonstrably untrue. Libertarians are very much in the mainstream consensus in this respect. You are really on the fringe.

[FF578]

I know you are wrong. The Crime against nature charge is used a lot in charging homosexuals who commit their immoral behavior in public parks.

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.

[LowOiL]

I find it amazing that there seems to be so many of them on the internet, yet the only get 0.036% of the vote when it comes election time.

They have to go on the net. They could not find those of like mind anywhere else. The net brings the obscure out of the woods.

[Wondervixen]

Does this mean the electric chair is constitutional down there again?

[AntiGuv]

Homosexuality is a separate matter altogether, and the nature of the CAN law is consistently described as indiscriminate which is why it can ostensibly withstand legal challenge. Moreover, even in those rather isolated situations when the law is invoked in the context that you discuss, it's usually with some related charge such as solicitation/intent to commit a felony which is itself usually dismissed or bargained down.