No right to sexual privacy?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 29, 2004, 10:38 am

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... toys_ban_5

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a 1998 Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys in the state, ruling the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy.

In a 2-1 decision overturning a lower court, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said the state has a right to police the sale of devices that can be sexually stimulating.

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which represented merchants and users who sued to overturn the law, asked the appeals court to rule that the Constitution included a right to sexual privacy that the ban on sex toy sales would violate. The court declined, indicating such a decision could lead down other paths.

"If the people of Alabama in time decide that a prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter," the court said.

"On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like."

Attorney General Troy King said the court "has done its duty" in upholding the law.

Sherri Williams, an adult novelty retailer who filed the lawsuit with seven other women and two men, called the decision "depressing."

"I'm just very disappointed that courts feel Alabamians don't have the right to purchase adult toys. It's just ludicrous," said Williams, who lives in Florida and owns Pleasures stores in Huntsville and Decatur. "I intend to pursue this."

U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. of Huntsville has twice ruled against the state law, deciding in 2002 that the sex toy ban violated the constitutional right to privacy. The state appealed both times and won.

The state law bans only the sale of sex toys, not their possession, the court said, and it doesn't regulate other items including condoms or virility drugs. "The Alabama statute proscribes a relatively narrow bandwidth of activity," U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr. wrote.

Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett disagreed, saying the decision was based on the "erroneous foundation" that adults don't have a right to consensual sexual intimacy and that private acts can be made a crime in the name of promoting "public morality."

I find it hard to believe that people would accept this law, but then again it is Alabama...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 29, 2004, 10:51 am

I like this judge. He is reminding people of the proper method for removing ill-fitted laws.

If you don't like a law, vote in reps that will vote it out.

"If the people of Alabama in time decide that a prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter," the court said.

"On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like."

Mak · Post by **Mak** » July 29, 2004, 10:54 am

I disagree, Adex. It's a seperation of powers thing. It's the job of the courts to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, and not just to toss it back to the legislature. If this attitude had prevailed 40 years ago, we might still be having to deal with segregation.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 29, 2004, 10:59 am

A state has the ablity to set community standards of decency. That "is" constitutional. It's the same power that prohibits you from having an orgy in a public square.

The great thing about this situation is the voters have full power to remove this law if they feel it doesn't represent their collective community standard.

I'll also grant you that selling sex toys in public leads to their use 99% of the time in private, thus my assumption that the voters in general would not support this law as it is ill-fitting to the decency standard that they're trying to address.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 29, 2004, 10:59 am

The south is pretty goofy(in general) pertaining to sexual behavior. It does not surprise me to see Alabama once again in the mix.

What I always wonder is how many people have to go to court based on this.

As you can see your honor in Exhibit A(GIANT RUBBER COCK) that the Defendants have clearly broken the law. Also note that the defendants are clearly not blood related. I move for immediate incarceration.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » July 29, 2004, 11:00 am

Mak wrote:I disagree, Adex. It's a seperation of powers thing. It's the job of the courts to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, and not just to toss it back to the legislature. If this attitude had prevailed 40 years ago, we might still be having to deal with segregation.

The Courts' job, in this case, is route out inconsistencies between laws. In this case, the ruling is claiming that there is no contradiction without explicitly saying that the law should be kept. It is not the purpose of the courts to legislate.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 29, 2004, 11:10 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:A state has the ablity to set community standards of decency. That "is" constitutional. It's the same power that prohibits you from having an orgy in a public square.

The great thing about this situation is the voters have full power to remove this law if they feel it doesn't represent their collective community standard.

I'll also grant you that selling sex toys in public leads to their use 99% of the time in private, thus my assumption that the voters in general would not support this law as it is ill-fitting to the decency standard that they're trying to address.

Yes states have the right to set a standard of decency

Decency would be a world without hate, sex, or violence, so in order to uphold decency we should make it manditory that every citizen takes there "gramateron pills" on an hourly basis to repress un-moral emotions, and better a perfict, christian society under the rule of a new gramateron government.
All those that rebel against this standard of decency shall be executed immidatly

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 29, 2004, 11:34 am

Stupid, but in todays society who gives a fuck. They can go to http://www.adamandeve.com and order all the dildos they want!!!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 29, 2004, 12:06 pm

Xzion wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:A state has the ablity to set community standards of decency. That "is" constitutional. It's the same power that prohibits you from having an orgy in a public square.

The great thing about this situation is the voters have full power to remove this law if they feel it doesn't represent their collective community standard.

I'll also grant you that selling sex toys in public leads to their use 99% of the time in private, thus my assumption that the voters in general would not support this law as it is ill-fitting to the decency standard that they're trying to address.
Yes states have the right to set a standard of decency
Decency would be a world without hate, sex, or violence, so in order to uphold decency we should make it manditory that every citizen takes there "gramateron pills" on an hourly basis to repress un-moral emotions, and better a perfict, christian society under the rule of a new gramateron government.
All those that rebel against this standard of decency shall be executed immidatly

Relax man,

I could care less if you buy a dildo or not.

If you were in Alabama, and didn't like that law, you have full freedom to work towards it's removal.

My concern is that you have that freedom.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 29, 2004, 12:15 pm

Cause Midnyte orders at least a dozen dildo's a month from there. He wears them out fast.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 29, 2004, 12:22 pm

for some reason i got an Adam and Eve catalog in the mail when i was 15. i think in retrospect it is just genious marketing. i never ordered anything from the catalog, but i beat off to that thing like a Hassid head bobbing to the Talmud.

i have never owned a porn video but i still remmber some of the titles and pictures associated with them in that catalog. "deep within Ginger Lynn"....

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 29, 2004, 12:42 pm

I actually agree with the decision. They would be opening Pandora's Box if they did pass the law like they said. That would limit them in other cases and would end up biting them in the ass.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 29, 2004, 12:43 pm

Gramerton pills give me a raging boner...

Farrel · Post by **Farrel** » July 29, 2004, 1:05 pm

Its supposed to be against the law in AL to have intercourse in any position other than missionary. This doesnt surprise me.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 29, 2004, 1:08 pm

Voronwë wrote:for some reason i got an Adam and Eve catalog in the mail when i was 15. i think in retrospect it is just genious marketing. i never ordered anything from the catalog, but i beat off to that thing like a Hassid head bobbing to the Talmud.

i have never owned a porn video but i still remmber some of the titles and pictures associated with them in that catalog. "deep within Ginger Lynn"....

Damn Voro got the Adam and Eve catalog and most the rest of us were stuck with Victoria Secret catalogs!

Ginger Lynn and Amber Lynn were big pr0n stars in the late 80's. This validates Voro's story!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 29, 2004, 1:11 pm

Under this law, I would get the electric chair.

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » July 29, 2004, 1:32 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:I actually agree with the decision. They would be opening Pandora's Box if they did pass the law like they said. That would limit them in other cases and would end up biting them in the ass.

How does ruling that people have the right to sexual privacy open up Pandora's Box? Their claim that sexual privacy rights would force their hand in certain cases is ludicrous. You have certain privacy rights in your own home, too, but that doesn't mean you can do absolutely anything you want there. As long as they have legitimate reasons for why things like adult incest and prostitution are illegal other than 'you have no right to sexual privacy,' a different ruling in this case wouldn't affect those other issues to the extent that they seem to be claiming. It's like all that ridiculous slippery slope nonsense with legalizing gay marriage. They're trying to make very different things seem exactly the same.

And Adex, once again you demonstrate your vast misunderstanding about how our government works. This was a case about constitutionality, a case in which the wishes of the state's voters should be irrelevant. It should be irrelevant whether or not they'll vote in people willing to overturn the law. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional, period. And that applies to every state, regardless of your claim that they have a right to set community standards of decency (which is dubious at best).

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 29, 2004, 1:42 pm

I would not call my stance a misunderstanding of our law, but rather a founding interpretation. If you let the courts make laws for you, then you truely loose freedom.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 29, 2004, 2:16 pm

As much as I think this is an utterly ridiculous law, I don't see the reasoning behind declaring it unconstitional based on the right to privacy. Been looking around on the web a bit today but haven't found anyplace that really gave a satisfactory discussion of it.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 29, 2004, 2:19 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I would not call my stance a misunderstanding of our law, but rather a founding interpretation. If you let the courts make laws for you, then you truely loose freedom.

What about allowing the courts and a few "activist judges" to elect your president?

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 29, 2004, 2:51 pm

This about the right to sell sex toys, not to own them. They have no problem if you want to use your king kong dong up your ass or not. They are saying that the law states this is not something we want sold in our society. If they make the claim about sexual privacy, which isn't mentioned in the constitution, it can be used as presidence in favor for those who really are guilty of crimes like Incest and Beastiality that many Alabamians are supposedly known for.

Maybe they could give dildos and blowup sheep away for free and not get fined but if they sell it they will. I am not saying I agree with the prudeness of the law but it is a law. The people have the right to repeal that law.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 29, 2004, 3:19 pm

Stuff like this is usually the first step towards anti-gay legislating. If you do not possess a right to sexual privacy, it drastically widens the governmental powers to persue anti-sodomy laws. Sex toys should be sold in designated areas, similar to where they put their nudey bars. Banning them will not stop people from obtaining them. This law is pointless, outside of establishing that people's sexual privacy is not protected in Alabama.

The principle behind the law, though stupid, is not the problem. Its the language of the judges decision that essentially says people's sexual conduct is open fair game for the government's other laws in Alabama that is the issue. A better argument for maintaining the law would have simply been to use the community standards thing that keeps strip clubs out of certain neighborhoods or gambling out of most of the country.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 29, 2004, 3:25 pm

I think the community standards is what this ruling was based on. The judge, unless I'm mistaken, decided that this was not an issue of sexual privacy, but of public decency standards.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 29, 2004, 3:30 pm

He specifically stated that sexual privacy was not constitutionally protected in his ruling. That is the principle issue.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 29, 2004, 3:31 pm

A state can legislate what it does and does not want sold within its borders. It does not violate any one's privacy or civil rights. Some states outlaw the use of Fireworks with the exception of Sprinklers. These items can not be used or sold on that states soil. Does this violate anyone's rights because they want to use them in private? No. It makes it illegal. Same analogy goes for the selling of sexual devices, however they make no claims that you can not use them in the privacy of your own home. If you want to buy your Jumbo-dong then cross the border and buy it there. When they outlaw the USE of such sexual devices that would fall under the violation of personal privacy. This isn't anti-gay legislation, it is just something they did not want to sold within their society.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 29, 2004, 3:33 pm

Do you understand the legal ramifications of stating that sexual privacy is not constitutionally protected? That is my one and only problem with the ruling.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 29, 2004, 3:39 pm

Yes Jice however, if they even attempted to legislate morality in that type of manner it would be killed by the Supreme Court. Sexual Privacy shouldn't need to be protected, protecting it then sets standards to where it can be boxed in by legislation. For some reason we need laws for every single facet of society where common sense "Should" prevail.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 29, 2004, 3:44 pm

Connect the dots for me again.

How do you go from a restriction on sales of sex toys, to a violation of privacy?

If I bought something like that off the internet and I lived in alabama, how does this law get into my house and violate my privacy?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 29, 2004, 3:48 pm

The problem is this is the kind of ruling that future rulings could be based on. Example:

Lets say the Georgia State Police, or any private company, decide that they want to add a little check box to their application that requires you to check:

[] Hetero
[] Homo
[] Switch hitter

Or the private christian values school your trying to get your daughter into has this little question:

[] I am a good little virgin
[] I am technically a virgin, since I only took it up the ass.
[] I am actually well adjusted enough to have had sex and not felt guilty.

When someone challenges this stupidity, the people in favor of allowing this can say "Well, in this decision Judge Redneck McHomophobe ruled that sexual privacy was not constitutionally protected." because a precedent has been made.

MY examples are somewhat far fetched, granted, but thats how shit like this gets started.

edit- Adex, I have no problem with a ban on stores that sell sex toys (even though its stupid prudish rubbish) in and of itself. What is the issue is the wording of this judges ruling opens the path to other potential laws that I do have a problem with.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 29, 2004, 3:55 pm

You have a point jice, I Just have this far-fetched idea that the US does have the capacity to use common sense. But your examples, as far out as they may be do have a valid point that I really can't refute!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 29, 2004, 7:30 pm

Both examples you mention would be easily delt with if they happened today.

One is currently illegal and the other would be destroyed by furious parents taking their money to another non-inappropriate school.

I understand that you're trying illustrate a theme.

If I read you right you're saying that without strongly worded legal precident, our privacy is subject to intrusion.

I would say that the strongest thing we have going to defend against invasions of privacy is the fact that our laws are voted on. Americans for 200 years have vigorously defended personal privacy. Even when our laws went out of bounds (mainly during war), we fixed them. We are empowered as Americans. Our collective desire to protect our privacy is a juggernaut stronger than any legal ruling.

Think about it, you and I are on opposite sides on many issues, yet we both agree that privacy isn't to be messed with.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 29, 2004, 7:51 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Connect the dots for me again.

How do you go from a restriction on sales of sex toys, to a violation of privacy?

If I bought something like that off the internet and I lived in alabama, how does this law get into my house and violate my privacy?

I'd have to say it's because the government in this case is trying to tell you how you can and cannot have sex. It's fucking wrong in every sense of the word.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 29, 2004, 9:29 pm

im not gonna read this whole article but *smacks adex*

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » July 29, 2004, 11:21 pm

Ohhh... I thought this said there was a ruling against sexual piracy. Which would suck, because I love wearing the eyepatch. You truly have not boned until you've boned without depth perception.

As for the issue at hand, I'd just like to state that Tinky Winky is a fag.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 30, 2004, 12:10 am

Perhaps you should read the thread Drasta.

You'll see it's rather supportive.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 30, 2004, 1:43 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Connect the dots for me again.

How do you go from a restriction on sales of sex toys, to a violation of privacy?

If I bought something like that off the internet and I lived in alabama, how does this law get into my house and violate my privacy?
I'd have to say it's because the government in this case is trying to tell you how you can and cannot have sex. It's fucking wrong in every sense of the word.

pssst. your conservative buddys love to tell the country how or how not they can have sex or how the government should play a large role in dictating the way you live your lives

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » July 30, 2004, 2:54 am

Maybe they could give dildos and blowup sheep away for free and not get fined but if they sell it they will. I am not saying I agree with the prudeness of the law but it is a law. The people have the right to repeal that law.

Actually a good idea. Wonder what would happen if the adult store guy in the article started giving blowup sheeps and dildos away on the stairs of the courthouse for a week or so.

Dexail · Post by **Dexail** » July 30, 2004, 11:30 am

Hey, what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults, a midget stripper and donkey is none of my business...

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » July 30, 2004, 11:55 am

you're on the verge of butchering that line!

Post by **Sylvus** » July 30, 2004, 12:21 pm

Sionistic wrote:you're on the verge of butchering that line!

rofl, i was thinking the same thing

"Some people are against porno and I say 'hey the state of Utah, whatever a man and a woman... and another woman with a penis and a midget do to a donkey... that's their gosh darn business'"

Dexail · Post by **Dexail** » July 30, 2004, 12:38 pm

couldn't remember exactly how he stated it.... My memory is going as I get older

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 30, 2004, 12:49 pm

By the way, only the dissenting judge felt this was actually an issue of sexual privacy. The other judges felt that the law was narrow enough in scope so as not to violate a person's right to privacy. I have to agree with them.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » July 30, 2004, 2:03 pm

Speaking of the government telling us how not to have sex..... didn't like Texas pass a law to withdraw the "anal sex" law like what 3 years ago

Knibble · Post by **Knibble** » July 31, 2004, 8:06 am

I think those judges need to get some toys themselves and try them with their partner and see just how awesome it really is.

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » August 1, 2004, 12:38 pm

I live in the Birmingham area and have laughed at this law for a while. It started up several years ago but at first they said , now get this......... It was against the law for WOMEN to buy sex toys.
I don't know where to find an old article on it but that is what the law said, that is why there are so many women in the law suit.
I think what started it may have been trying to keep the stores or more of the stores from moving in. Also the privacy thing might have come in to play when the people fighting it claimed it invaded their privacy.
Here is something else funny to me, there is a dance club (titty bar) that was to open two years ago but they couldn't get their booze license , these guys spent a couple million to build it. Another club here went to court to stop them from getting their license and wham, they can't get their license for booze and because they can't get that license they can't get their dance license.

I guess , or at least in Alabama you can't own a nude dance club with out a booze license.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » August 1, 2004, 12:58 pm

*shakes fist at the air* Yes! Immorality is now gone from Alabama. Now all those adulterous house and senate members can go home to their mistresses and know that they kept those sex toys off the market. Well done.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » August 1, 2004, 2:43 pm

Adex is absolutely right. This is not a constitutional issue just like gay marraige is not a constitutional issue. If they want the laws changed, the legislative branch needs to do it, not the judicial branch. Talk to the lawmakers, not the judges.

Gamei · Post by **Gamei** » August 3, 2004, 10:02 pm

If they want the laws changed, the legislative branch needs to do it, not the judicial branch. Talk to the lawmakers, not the judges.

The problem with that line of thinking, when referring to Alabama, is that the lawmaker's can't and won't think for themselves. Too much old money and too much religion in this state for lawmakers to risk being progressive.

Somehow we voted in a progressive governor, who put forth excellent ideas for changing our antiquated tax code and perhaps even our century old constituation.

Our amazingly intelligent public voted the changes down, mostly thanks to advertising by businesses and other wealthier figures(who would've been hurt most by any changes.)

My state sucks. =(

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/al%20pr.pdf

That report gives some numbers for you to go "wtf" at. =p

Mak · Post by **Mak** » August 3, 2004, 10:23 pm

Avestan wrote:Adex is absolutely right. This is not a constitutional issue just like gay marraige is not a constitutional issue. If they want the laws changed, the legislative branch needs to do it, not the judicial branch. Talk to the lawmakers, not the judges.

It's up to the courts to decide if it's a Constitutional issue or not, not a lawmaker. That's why there's that whole third branch of government. 7th grade social studies will tell you it's the legislature's job to enact laws, executive branch to enforce them, and judiciary's job to decide if a law is constitutional or not when challenged. It's how it was designed. Remember checks and balances?

Any law someone thinks isn't right can be taken before the courts, and then the courts decide if it's fair or not.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 3, 2004, 11:17 pm

Marriage is an institution of the bible and god, therefore I should be able to have hundreds of wives like those biblical guys and sleep with my maids if my wives are barren.