One more personal privacy right gone.

[Annie]

Here's a bit of a legal analysis:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180191546

 

[freeandfun1]

We are straying from the point of the court. The court said they had no right to interfere with laws enacted by the state. The people passed the law banning the SALE - NOT - THE USE of the "toys". It is up to the PEOPLE to repeal the law. If the court interferes now and repeals the law, they are violating the rights of the people of Alabama by overstepping their boundaries and straying into a "state's rights" issue. They might not have directly said that, but that is as much implied as the point some are trying to make saying that the decision says. I believe the court was right. Yes, the law is silly, but as the judge said, it is up to the people of Alabama to repeal the law. not the courts.

 

[freeandfun1]

Here's a bit of a legal analysis:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180191546

Same link I posted. I think the author of the initial story "added" a little to make the story appear to be more than it is.

 

[Annie]

Same link I posted. I think the author of the initial story "added" a little to make the story appear to be more than it is.

Sorry I missed yours. Hey, what about the Lawrence ruling mentioned?

 

[freeandfun1]

Without a fundamental right at stake, Birch wrote, only the people of Alabama could decide "that a prohibition of sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly ... ."

Without a fundamental right at stake

Please educate me you constitutionalists..... what are fundamental rights?

 

[popefumanchu]

I believe that this - Amendment IX - Rights Retained by the People
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - proves me right. The right to privacy was created by the people, not the courts, not the government, but by the people. We are not a nation with limits imposed by the government....at least we are not supposed to be.

That is saying indisputible rights are not restricted. The right to eat, sleep, make a living, and other necessary funtions for life are protected and didn't need to be specifically mentioned. Privacy is not essential to life, not to mention impossible to completely have anyway. It is not a right.

 

[freeandfun1]

Time and time again the courts have ruled that only in certain circumstances is the right to privacy protected by the constitution. the same judges that rule that you have a right to privacy when it comes to sex in your home, will say you don't have a right to privacy when it comes to smoking or many other things in your home. The courts are getting out of control.

 

[Annie]

Without a fundamental right at stake

Please educate me you constitutionalists..... what are fundamental rights?

I tried a legal site, but coming down to 'basic'. I'll have to assume they are the 'natural law' via Rousseau, Montesquieu, ect.

Cannot be 'granted' nor 'taken away'. Life, Liberty, Property

 

[popefumanchu]

Time and time again the courts have ruled that only in certain circumstances is the right to privacy protected by the constitution. the same judges that rule that you have a right to privacy when it comes to sex in your home, will say you don't have a right to privacy when it comes to smoking or many other things in your home. The courts are getting out of control.

Privacy is a very difficult thing to define. If your curtains are open and the lights are on, do you still have privacy? Do you have privacy in your car? In your back yard with a privacy fence? Can you break the law? If no one saw you do it, did it happen legally? This is why there are no guarantees to privacy. It is up to the states to define what is legal and what is not in these circumstances through laws, not court rulings.

Like you said, the law bans the sale not the use. This is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Merlin1047]

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.

I see your point. It would be better had the court avoided that statement. Not only does it pose a rights hazard, but it also provides a ready made basis for appeal. Private adult conduct is one thing, public sale of items deemed "objectionable" by the community is another.

And this is for Hannitized:

A father, curious about a strange buzzing noise, blundered into the bedroom of Jane, his 36 year old daughter who had never been married. He found her busily engaged with a "personal" vibrator. In shock, he hastily backed out.

Later, his somewhat embarrassed daughter explained the facts of single life to Dad.

A couple of days later, Jane came home and was horrified to find Dad on the sofa sitting next to the vibrator which was buzzing merrily away.

"DAD" she screeched, "What the hell are you doing?"

"Don't know why you're all bent out of shape." her father replied. "I'm just sitting here having a beer and watching the game with my son-in-law."


Okay, okay also this:

Q. Why does a woman need to get married?


A. A vibrator can't mow the lawn.


I got more if you want them.

 

[DKSuddeth]

through all of the issues and rulings, we're letting the government become the rulers, not the people ruling the government. we're losing our republic this way.

 

[freeandfun1]

through all of the issues and rulings, we're letting the government become the rulers, not the people ruling the government. we're losing our republic this way.

More like we are letting the courts become the rulers and not the people.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, thats completely wrong. The constitution does NOT provide limits to the people, it provides limits to the government. Any right not expressly forbidden in the constitution is automatically granted, not the other way around. The court screwed up.

I think you are addressing the crux of the general misunderstanding (by liberals) in this statement of yours. Yes, it is true the Constitution was set up to provide limits to the government. And yes, it is true that any right not expressly forbidden in the Constitution is automatically granted...to the People.

This does NOT mean that these rights are left up to each and every INDIVIDUAL as some would have you believe. These rights are left to the PEOPLE.

Thus individual rights (unless expressly written in the Constitution) are to be determined by the VOTE of the PEOPLE in their various States and communities. This is how our society is supposed to work.

The ACLU and activist judges are screwing with the Constitution by reading things into it that are NOT actually written there. They want to force "interpreted" law, loosely concocted from between the lines, onto the People of the entire country, thus circumventing the People and their Constitutional RIGHT to vote on the matters.

 

[musicman]

Where do "personal privacy rights" stop? I should then be able to do anything in my home that I want. Anything - as long as I keep it "private".

The law is not banning the use, only the sale. I still don't see how not striking down the ban on the sale of the items violates "personal rights". As Merlin pointed out, there are a lot of communities that ban the sales of various items. Alabama is a state correct? So the state is the community. If the law was passed, by the people, in a legal manner, then repealing it would violate the rights of the community. It is up to the community to repeal the law. Not the courts.

You took the words right out of my mouth. It sounds to me like the judiciary, for once, is leaving the decision in the hands of the community, where it belongs. This could be the start of something big!

And, of course, the ACLU is right in there, with their sleeves rolled up, fighting for America's best interests, like always. Where would we be without them?

 

[phadras]

my blackmarket adult toys path to riches... I can already hear the buzzing---cha-ching!!!$$$$$$$

 

[5stringJeff]

1. I'm moving to the Tennessee-Alabama border and opening an adult superstore.

2. It seems clear that the Alabama court left this one up to the legislative branch to decide.

3. Did the court actually state "there is no Constitutional right" to sexual privacy? Or was that just the author?

 

[Zhukov]

I am betting that the statement ". . . . ruling the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy" is being inserted by the author of the article.

That's precisely what I was thinking, because I don't see how banning the sale of anything is an infringment on anyone's right to sexual privacy.

That line could be another fine example of liberal media bias. Not because it's about privacy, but because it's about sex.