You have no constitutional right to vibrators (Yahoo News):
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Tuesday a constitutional challenge to an Alabama law that makes it a crime to sell sex toys.
The high court refused to hear an appeal by a group of individuals who regularly use sexual devices and by two vendors who argued the case raised important issues about the scope of the constitutional right to sexual privacy.
The law prohibited the distribution of “any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.” First-time violators can face a fine of up to $10,000 and as much as one year in jail.
When this law was first passed, I wondered whether thay were outlawing cucumbers, whipped cream, or latex. I guess they are outlawing anything sold for “genital stimulation.”
But does that mean I can’t go down to the corner store and say “in fact today, I think I’ll have a French Tickler”? Do I have the right to buy unexciting condoms, as long as they don’t stimulate my partner? Very strange law, and unfortunate that the Supremes didn’t find a constitutional issue. Do you see a connection between this case and the recent “Extreme Associates” ruling?
(Thanks to Matt, John, and Dr. B for pointing this out.)
Bad Vibrations
You have no constitutional right to vibrators (Yahoo News):
When this law was first passed, I wondered whether thay were outlawing cucumbers, whipped cream, or latex. I guess they are outlawing anything sold for “genital stimulation.”
But does that mean I can’t go down to the corner store and say “in fact today, I think I’ll have a French Tickler”? Do I have the right to buy unexciting condoms, as long as they don’t stimulate my partner? Very strange law, and unfortunate that the Supremes didn’t find a constitutional issue. Do you see a connection between this case and the recent “Extreme Associates” ruling?
(Thanks to Matt, John, and Dr. B for pointing this out.)
[Crossposted from the Cyberporn & Society blog.]
Share this: