Pry this Vibrator from my Cold ......

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2007
Pry this Vibrator from my Cold ......
15
Tue, 10-02-2007 - 12:21pm

"They are going to have to pry this vibrator from my cold, dead hand," is the quote from one adult, novelty store owner. Sherry Williams owns 2 Pleasures stores, and she's HOT that the US Supereme Court declined to hear a challenge to Alabama's ban on the sale of sex toys. This 9 year legal battle has ended, and has prompted a warning to store owners to clean off their shelves, according to my local newspaper.

According to the article, "Alabama's anti-obscenity law, enacted in 1998, bans the distribution of any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." Residents of Alabama MAY legally purchase sex toys from out of state for use within the state. In Alabma, those that are caught distributing sex toys can receive a penalty of up to 1 year in jail and a $10,000 fine for a first offense, and a 10 year sentence for a second offense!

I'm not convinced that this matter will die down. What are your thoughts? Do you think states have the right (or should have the right) to ban sex toys? Do you think this law makes any sense?













my partner in the siggy exchange




Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-29-2006
Tue, 10-02-2007 - 1:01pm
Well, the hope is that stores can continue marketing them as "marital aids", "novelties", and "personal massagers", and continue to get around the legalities involved in selling sex toys here in AL. And if not, well, I predict a huge surge in online sex toy shopping! LOL ;)


_________________________________________________


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-04-2006
Tue, 10-02-2007 - 2:42pm

"Do you think states have the right (or should have the right) to ban sex toys?"

Well...yes and no. Yes, states do have the right to pass laws that don't violate Federal Law or the Constitution. But no, I don't think they should have the right to ban sex toys. Alabama's anti-obscenity laws are not intended to provide protection against harm, and are not intended to ensure any individual's rights to live their own lives as they see it. In fact they were enacted to accommodate some folks' desire to deny other's their right to live their own lives as they see fit. They are laws designed to impose one faction's morality upon another..and as far as I'm concerned the Supreme Court should have heard the appeal.

"Do you think this law makes any sense?"

Capital "N", capital "O". In my opinion lawmakers should be concerning themselves with protecting their constituency from the harm others may inflict upon them. No one, repeat, no one is being harmed by some store providing a loving couple with the means to enhance their lives. Should the location and the advertising of such stores be subjected to some oversight? Yes. Should they be subjected to prison terms? Senseless...absolutely senseless.


- - - - - - - - - -


Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-10-2007
Tue, 10-02-2007 - 4:06pm
I posted the full AP story over on the "Let's Talk About Toys" board. No one has commented. Obviously, this is a ridiculous law enacted the Alabama Legislature, and now essentially upheld by our esteemed U.S. Supreme Court. I think the sex-toy shop owners should find some progressive physicians who will prescribe "marital aids" for their patients. That should meet the "bona fide medical purpose" criteria.



Seriously, this is not without precedence. Back in Victorian times, cases of "female hysteria" (a catch-all diagnosis for any number of symptoms) were treated by inducing "hysterical paroxysm" (orgasm) in the afflicted woman. Doctors did this manually at first and then with vibrators. Indeed, by the early 1900s, vibrators were readily available -- probably even in Alabama -- for home use.



Of course, "female hysteria" is no longer recognized illness, but I'm sure that a good endorphin release would be considered useful in treating any number of other, legitimate diagnoses.



Here is the full article:




HIGH COURT LETS ALABAMA SEX-TOY BAN STAND



By PHILLIP RAWLS

The Associated Press



MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The U.S. Supreme Court declined today to hear a challenge to Alabama's ban on the sale of sex toys, ending a nine-year legal battle and sending a warning to store owners to clean off their shelves.



An adult-store owner had asked the justices to throw out the law as an unconstitutional intrusion into the privacy of the bedroom. But the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving intact a lower court ruling that upheld the law.



Sherri Williams, owner of Pleasures stores in Huntsville and Decatur, said she was disappointed, but plans to sue again on First Amendment free speech grounds.



"My motto has been they are going to have to pry this vibrator from my cold, dead hand. I refuse to give up," she said.



Alabama's anti-obscenity law, enacted in 1998, bans the distribution of "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for anything of pecuniary value."



The law does not ban the possession of sex toys, and it doesn't regulate other items, including condoms or virility drugs. Residents may legally purchase sex toys out of state for use in Alabama, or they may buy sexual devices in Alabama that have a "bona fide medical" purpose.



Similar laws have been upheld in Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas, but struck down in Louisiana, Kansas and Colorado, said Mark Lopez, a former American Civil Liberties Union attorney in New York who worked on the Alabama case until recently.



The Alabama attorney general's office immediately notified county district attorneys, who are responsible for enforcement. The attorney general planned to ask a federal judge to lift an injunction preventing the law from being enforced.



Removing the injunction should take a couple of days, said Chris Bence, spokesman for Attorney General Troy King.



Store owners should be aware that the law takes effect once the injunction is lifted, Bence said.



Williams had asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found Alabama's law was not affected by a U.S. Supreme Court decision knocking down Texas' sodomy law.



The Texas sodomy law involved private conduct, while the Alabama law regulated commercial activity, the appeals court judges said. Public morality was an insufficient government interest in the Texas case but was sufficient in the Alabama case, they said.



Williams called the Supreme Court's decision not to review the law "further evidence of religion in politics."



"The U.S. Supreme Court said states can legislate morality," she said. "I don't feel it is fair to the people who do not agree with the morality of the Legislature."



She also predicted future court battles over which sexual devices are legal to sell as medical devices.



Lopez said adult stores may be cautious about pushing the issue of what constitutes a medical device because the law has strong penalties: Up to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine for a first offense. A second offense carries a prison sentence of one to 10 years.



Copyright 2007 by The Seattle Times Company


Black sig<
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-21-2004
Tue, 10-02-2007 - 4:33pm
I would think that sex toys would fall under the heading of "pursuit of happiness"! What legitimate business does the government have in regulating what consenting adults do TO THEIR OWN BODIES?

--


martinisnsushi - living the good life since 1963

--


martinisnsushi - the two most important food groups!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2007
Tue, 10-02-2007 - 5:19pm

Thanks for posting the full AP article. I'm sure this news hit papers across the US in various forms.













my partner in the siggy exchange




iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-2007
Tue, 10-02-2007 - 11:29pm
Chalk up another win for Stupid Religion and the keepers of morality.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2006
Wed, 10-03-2007 - 6:03am
Legislating morality, hmmph. So much for Republicans being the party of 'minimizing government intrusion into the private lives of citizens', not to mention 'pro business'. Can someone please explain to me who exactly the victim is in this heinous crime of selling sex toys, and why Alabama legislators feel the need to enrich the coffers of out of state businesses at the expense of local businessmen and women? Makes me glad I live in the deep blue state of Massachusetts, where such anti-business attitudes and intrusion into peoples' private lives would never be tolerated, and not the Nanny State of Alabama.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket




iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2007
Wed, 10-03-2007 - 6:56am
Welcome to the board slipofamom, and thanks for joining in the conversation.












my partner in the siggy exchange




iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2007
Wed, 10-03-2007 - 9:31am
That sucks bc we are moving back to Alabama back home next year bc we are PCSing to a new duty station so I guess ill have to purchase in Texas before I leave.
~ Emily ~
~ Emily ~
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-21-2004
Wed, 10-03-2007 - 6:37pm

You wrote "So much for Republicans..."

A quick check shows that both chambers of the Alabama legislature are under Democratic control.

--


martinisnsushi - living the good life since 1963

--


martinisnsushi - the two most important food groups!

Pages