One more personal privacy right gone.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by DKSuddeth, Jul 29, 2004.

  1. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Fed court declares no constitutional right to sexual privacy

    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 said the state has a right to police the sale of devices that can be sexually stimulating.

    The American Civil Liberties Union, 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."

    someone tell me again that the government isn't trying to turn us into a 'big brother' nation. :rolleyes:
     
  2. Big D
    Online

    Big D Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    My wife is my sex toy, good thing we don't live in Alabama.
     
  3. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Communities have long had the option to regulate certain activities within their jurisdiction. For example - some localities ban the sale of alcoholic beverages, some prohibit sale of alcohol on Sunday. Other communities prohibit strip clubs or public nudity. Still others prohibit the sale of pornographic or sexually explicit material. All of these products are generally used within the privacy of one's home, yet all are regulated. The practice of regulating certain of these activities pre-dates the Declaration of Independence.

    Now I don't care how kinky consenting adults want to get within the confines of their own home, but I fail to understand why you feel that this particular law is more egregious than any of the others. Care to enlighten me?
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    would love to. heres the two statements from the article that bother me.

    1) 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.

    this is a clear example of how a politically biased court(doesn't matter whether its left or right at this point) uses its 'judical activism' to dictate and reduce what used to be freedom. They are using their positions to basically rediefine the constitution as a document that gives them power over the citizenry instead of the original intent of limiting its power over us.

    2) 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."

    Anyone who reads this and agrees that the judicial branch is responsible for promoting public morality should be made public enemy number one. The founding fathers incorporated peoples power over the government to avoid things like the inquisition, a ruling body oppressing the people, and a moral code dictated by a government. Thats why its a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I might be a bit confused here, do see DK's point. Seems to me the ban should be on the sales of, such as most towns have via zoning. Good lord, I'd love to see them go through houses! Remember that quiz I did in humor a while back? Which are doggie toys and which, something else? :shocked:
     
  6. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Thats what the law says, yes. The troubling part is the extra comments made by the court and their implicit interpretation of 'if its not granted in the constitution, its not a right'. Thats the complete opposite of what the constitution says. So, in a sense, thats exactly what the court is saying....That you DON'T have the right to sexual privacy.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    WE have defeated this before !-----It's time for the dildo-duck airlift ! My poor sister lives there. Donate people donate !!!!
     
  8. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Why did EVERYBODY overlook the most important and valid statement in the entire article. This statement alone, explains why the court is right on this issue:



    The people of Alabama have a right to decide. It is not a decision for the courts to make. The prohibition is only on the sale of the items. The point the court made a good point about the slippery slope of getting the courts involved.
     
  9. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    This is the court's fallacious argument. They aren't 'crafting a new right' and it wouldn't be invalidating the law. They've used the adult incest, prostitution, obscenity and the like to get a popular consensus that they did the right thing, thereby validating their erroneous constitution interpretation.

    It was completely possible to validate the law and NOT declare something non-constitutional simply because they could.
     
  10. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Then why make this statement? 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.
     

Share This Page