Page 1 of 2
Texas: Proudly Setting Back Civil Rights Circa 1600
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:38 am
by Aaron
Link
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether a Texas law making it a crime to promote sex toys shaped like sexual organs is unconstitutional.
An adult bookstore employee in El Paso, Texas, sued the state after his arrest for showing two undercover officers a device shaped like a penis and telling the female officer the device would arouse and gratify her.
The employee, Ignacio Sergio Acosta, says a Texas law outlawing the manufacture, marketing or dissemination of an "obscene device" including those shaped like sex organs is unconstitutional because it prevents individuals from using such devices, violating their right to sexual privacy.
Colorado, Kansas and Louisiana have held such laws unconstitutional, while Georgia, Mississippi and Texas have upheld them, said Acosta's lawyer in urging the Supreme Court to take the case.
An El Paso County court granted Acosta's motion to dismiss a criminal complaint against him, but an appeals court reinstated it, saying the Texas law did not infringe on private sexual behavior.
The bar against promoting obscene devices has been found in other court cases not to infringe on a right to use obscene devices at home, the court of appeals for the Eighth District of Texas ruled.
Acosta also said the Texas law should be examined in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas criminal law banning gay sex as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
The case is Ignacio Sergio Acosta v. state of Texas, 05-1574.
That's right folks, in Texas it's illegal to sell sex toys. I guess they'd rather you turn to less savory methods (hookers) then enjoy yourself with some old-fashioned plastic and batteries. I love Conservative-fundie run states, their values start in your bedroom.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:57 am
by DSG2k
I don't get it . . . if you can't build 'em, buy 'em, or share them around, how the hell are you supposed to get one for your "private sexual behavior" that they say they aren't infringing on?
I'm not saying women have some natural inalienable right to vibrators (or men to whatever male equivalent), but if possession is okay and even not to be infringed upon then it seems they are requiring the existence of other states (which, for many Texans, are just a short 976-hour drive away) and interstate distribution methods as part of their 'rights'. Just seems a bit odd in principle. Methinks the folks are confused.
(Can you imagine if they simply took the next step and banned 'em? The Vibrator Rebellion? "They're coming at us, sir, with . . . oh no! Aaaah!!")
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:03 am
by Monroe
and telling the female officer the device would arouse and gratify her.
What an interesting and new fact of life.
This should have been his defense!
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
by Sionnach Glic
whether a Texas law making it a crime to promote sex toys shaped like sexual organs is unconstitutional.
Wait, does this mean that sex toys that aren't shaped like sexual organs would still be legal?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 pm
by Aaron
Rochey wrote:
Wait, does this mean that sex toys that aren't shaped like sexual organs would still be legal?
Probably, there's most likely a market for "personal massagers" there.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:28 pm
by Granitehewer
'setting back civil rights', i never imagined , that the old civil rights marchers had this in mind, lol
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:30 pm
by Aaron
Granitehewer wrote:'setting back civil rights', i never imagined , that the old civil rights marchers had this in mind, lol
Probably not but there's a rather famous Trudeau quote: "the government has no business in the bedroom". I happen to agree with him.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:33 pm
by Granitehewer
is the whole 'sex toys are evil or obscene', a product of americas' early christian right?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:46 pm
by Aaron
Granitehewer wrote:is the whole 'sex toys are evil or obscene', a product of americas' early christian right?
America was settled by Christian's who were fleeing religious persecution in England because they were too fundamentalist. This fundamentalist mindset has stuck with them over the years and the Christian right has a lot of power in the US, especially in the South. There really is no reason to ban sextoys but on religious grounds because no one but the religious gives two craps about them.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:02 pm
by Mikey
That's very true - thanks to the influence of Puritanism, many states a/o counties also have 'blue laws': regulations varying from making it illegal to sell alcohol on a Sunday all the way to making it illegal to work on your car out of doors on a Sunday. Oh yeah, we also got the Salem witch trials thanks to the Puritans (although I guess we could blame the Dominican order, and Frs. Spangler's & Ross' Malleus Maleficarum.)
In addition, there is a very strong streak in American society of "I don't want to mind my own business." Left or right, many people here believe that the correct way to espouse their own beliefs is to force them on others.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:28 pm
by Monroe
Granitehewer wrote:is the whole 'sex toys are evil or obscene', a product of americas' early christian right?
There was a Papal Edict in like the 12th Century that outlawed dildos. It was on the History of Sex by the History Channel.
Also the first execution in America was for something like, lude behavior with a sheep, horse, dog, goat, cow, and chicken.
What can you do with a chicken? Choke it?
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:18 am
by RK_Striker_JK_5
Mikey wrote:That's very true - thanks to the influence of Puritanism, many states a/o counties also have 'blue laws': regulations varying from making it illegal to sell alcohol on a Sunday all the way to making it illegal to work on your car out of doors on a Sunday. Oh yeah, we also got the Salem witch trials thanks to the Puritans (although I guess we could blame the Dominican order, and Frs. Spangler's & Ross' Malleus Maleficarum.)
Heard of those dumb blue laws. If I gotta change my tire on Sunday to get home, then dangit, I'm changing it!
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:50 am
by DSG2k
And yet a common practice was "bundling" . . . to the point (some claim) where overnight guests hardly bothered to ask permission to bang the of-age daughter. Certainly it's true that many marriages of the era occurred under a 9-month time limit.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:39 pm
by Mikey
And yet a common practice was "bundling" . . . to the point (some claim) where overnight guests hardly bothered to ask permission to bang the of-age daughter. Certainly it's true that many marriages of the era occurred under a 9-month time limit.
As in that example, another glaring trait (in hindsight) of Puritanism was its emphasis on appearance over content. In any early form of a Christian sect based on predestination, it was very hard to convince the laity of any particular reason to CHOOSE to do the "right" things - if I'm one of the predestined, ran the thinking, then I am already destined to make the right "choices." Therefore, the most important fact to many was the APPEARANCE or form of being one of the predestined.
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:57 pm
by Tsukiyumi
Oh boy! Religion, politics and science bundled into one forum thread!
I didn't know about that law; what a joke. Rochey and Cpl. Kendall, hi-larious responses. I knew I finally registered for a reason.
I know a bunch of chicks here who own them. I don't think they bought them out of state. (Ah, jeez. did I just give away my location?
)
Kind of makes me want to drop several tons of vibrators on the AFA headquarters...