bjorn_skurj Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Sexual-Device Sale Ban in Texas Left Intact by Top U.S. Court By Greg Stohr Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to question a Texas law that bars the sale of dildos and other "obscene devices,'' turning away an appeal by a store clerk facing prosecution. The justices made no comment in rejecting the appeal, which argued that the law violated a constitutional right to sexual privacy. The court last year turned down a similar challenge to an Alabama law. Texas is one of a handful of states that ban sexual devices. Courts have upheld laws in Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas and struck down restrictions in Colorado, Kansas and Louisiana. Texas bans the manufacture, sale, distribution and promotion of "devices including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marked as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.'' Ignacio Sergio Acosta, a clerk at Trixx Adult Bookstore in El Paso, was arrested in 2003 for selling a vibrator to two undercover police officers. A state trial judge threw out the case, saying the law was unconstitutional. An appeals court overturned that ruling and said the prosecution could go forward. In his Supreme Court appeal, Acosta pointed to a 2003 Supreme Court decision that said states can't ban private homosexual conduct. The case is Acosta v. Texas, 05-1574. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I'm glad I don't live in Texas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 If this turns into laws prohibiting possession, there will be a revolution and/or mass exodus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 the powers that be must feel threatened by dildos, or perhaps feel there are already enough dicks in Texas? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I told a guy from Texas to go fuck himself, and he said he would but it was against the law. Texas elected W. as governor, and then Perry -- maybe they don't feel they need any help fucking themselves. Texans saw a few 6" dildos and knew they had to ban them immediately, because they knew they could never measure up. In Texas, dildos don't fuck people -- people do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I think the key issue here was that the parties wanted to extrapolate a "right to sex toys" from the due process clauses of the federal constitution. In essence (and I've read NOTHING on this topic other than the first post on this thread, so I qualify this opinion as such) the Supreme Court is saying "If your state is so retarded that they want to have a law banning the sale of dildos, there's not much we can do about it, so go harass your legislature." on the other hand, here is a quote from Justice Kennedy from the Lawrence v. Texas case (mentioned in an earlier post) Link: "The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 yeah, then there's that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 hey, I'm the first to admit and acknowledge the sins of my fellow attorneys. But for every ambulance chaser and class action pimp, there are plenty of us who actually try to do the right thing... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Any state that allows guns, but not dildos has it's priorities in all the wrong places List of states I don't plan on moving to anytime soon: Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas...oh and South Dakota because of it's abortion laws (not that I was eager to move there before). Keep yer laws off people's bodies! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 In Texas, dildos don't fuck people -- people do.Anyone have the capability to make bumper stickers? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Anyone have the capability to make bumper stickers? To quote Mr. Heston: "You can take my dildo... when you pry it from my cold tired hands!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 To quote Mr. Heston: "You can take my dildo... when you pry it from my cold tired hands!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Saint Genevieve Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 If this turns into laws prohibiting possession, there will be a revolution and/or mass exodus. Oh god. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Oh god. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I think this is a ripe time for some savvy business man to come out with the Dildo Launcher 2300 . So, the next time you are caught with a dildo you can just say "No, no, no, officer, this is just ammunition for my weapon. I'm an avid beaver hunter!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Im wondering if it's similar to paraphenalia laws, where it's okay as long as there's no er, resin, on it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 i don't think this is a due process issue as much as an equal protection issue. you could go across the border and get a legal vibrator in another state. the devices aren't banned for safety, but for moral reasons. it's pretty shaky ground to stand on precedent-wise. the SCOTUS did the safest thing possible by just not hearing the case. pity for the clerk! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 I just don't want our nation to lose its edge in the vital field of dildonics, that's all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Elixir Sue Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 But for every ambulance chaser and class action pimp, there are plenty of us who actually try to do the right thing... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 i don't think this is a due process issue as much as an equal protection issue. you could go across the border and get a legal vibrator in another state. the devices aren't banned for safety, but for moral reasons. it's pretty shaky ground to stand on precedent-wise. the SCOTUS did the safest thing possible by just not hearing the case. pity for the clerk! I thought equal protection only came into play if a protected class was being denied rights available to those outside the protected class. It has been awhile since I took con law, but I don't remember "dildo users" as being a protected class. But you're dead on as far as SCOTUS calling "not it!". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I just don't want our nation to lose its edge in the vital field of dildonics, that's all. "Because the Chinese may just end up producing better dildos than us. Damn the Texans for costing us jobs!" The Court rejected this most likely because there really is no constitutional question of great importance, and that the issue isn't really "ripe" yet to rule on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) or they thought dildos are too sticky to touch (constitutionally). perhaps they don't want to touch the implied right to privacy until they revisit roe later. Edited October 4, 2006 by anodyne Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I'm guessing the Court opted not to get involved because they didn't want to hear all that heavy breathing from Clarence Thomas. Again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I'm guessing the Court opted not to get involved because they didn't want to hear all that heavy breathing from Clarence Thomas. Again. that was well played, sir! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.