Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Judges Create Sex Toy Rights
Activist moonbat judges deem sex toys legal in Texas. Weep for democracy!
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by as many as two years in jail, violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the appeals judges wrote. "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."
Alabama and Mississippi residents, alas, still risk prosecution every time they brandish a dildo.
Reason on why we love activist judges here, sex toys here.
Hat Tip: Rick Davis.
|2.15.08 @ 11:44AM|#
So, all we have to do is hide our drugs in sex toys and they are protected by the 14th Amendment?
the innominate one|2.15.08 @ 11:45AM|#
when sex toys are outlawed, only outlaws will have sex
toys
you can have my sex toy when you pry it from my cold, dead...um,
you know
Bingo|2.15.08 @ 11:47AM|#
So how big would it have to be in order to be covered under the
2nd amendment?
And if so, would it then be legal in MS and AL?
Tym|2.15.08 @ 11:49AM|#
So, all we have to do is hide our drugs in sex toys and they
are protected by the 14th Amendment?
The right to privacy gives you the right to things judges think you
should have a right to, but not to things they don't.
|2.15.08 @ 11:56AM|#
As miche notes, dildos have been openly for sale here in Texas as "personal massagers".
miche|2.15.08 @ 11:59AM|#
And sometimes our Texas dildos post crazy comments about how libertarian they are. Do you think this new ruling will validate Eric?
Jacob|2.15.08 @ 12:08PM|#
We're all wondering the same thing so I'll go ahead and ask
it:
What does this mean for prostitution?
|2.15.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Sam Grove is on the scent.
The 5th used Lawrence as guidance/precedence, with it's 'unique'
standard of review. Given that this creates a split in the
circuits, there is a fair chance this goes to SCotUS, which can
then choose to endorse the Lawrence precedent, narrow it, or throw
it out altogether. I would personally put money on THAT being the
reason the 5th teed it up; sort of a "you created this mess, now
you fix it" decision.
Bingo|2.15.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Jacob:
It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct
Somehow prostitution is "commerce in sex" and is not a "consensual
private intimate conduct." Not sure of the logic behind that, but
at least sex with vibrating robots is okay now :)
Jacob|2.15.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Bingo,
What if I waited to pay him/her until after we were "in the privacy
of our own homes"?
|2.15.08 @ 12:26PM|#
People *DO* have a right to sex toys, in that they should be free to buy/sell/use. People don't have a right to sex toys, in that they should be tax subsidized.
Tym|2.15.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Somehow prostitution is "commerce in sex" and is not a
"consensual private intimate conduct."
Maybe she could sell you something basixally worthless, for say
$200.00 or whatever, and give you one hour of free sex for buying
it.
|2.15.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Have you ever wondered what Q could have done
with sex toys?
I just did. I possibly need help.
Bingo|2.15.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Jacob:
Probably a no-knock search warrant! ;) In all seriousness, they
would probably find something in the commerce clause to prohibit
it. After all, it worked to prohibit growing dope in the privacy of
your home.
|2.15.08 @ 12:44PM|#
My hope is that this will put an end to the black market for second hand sex toys.
Jacob|2.15.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Rex Rhino,
"There are two Americas - one on the top and one on the bottom. One
that has all the sex toys they want and one that has to scrimp and
save for a simple vibrator. It's not fair that CEOs have hundreds
of sex toys while there workers are left with sweaty palms and
grainy videos. I propose a New Deal for Americans, where every
family will have an equal opportunity to be stimulated and
penetrated at the same time…"
|2.15.08 @ 12:48PM|#
I've always thought prostitutes could get away with it if they were travelling sex toys salespersons. They sell you the toy, then just show you how to use it. So, you pay a little more than some people would think the toy is worth, but the education you receive about how to use the toy, well, who can put a price on that?
|2.15.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Along those lines, why isn't it legal to pay someone to show you
how to have great sex? Maybe it is a course you could sign up for?
She'd be a teacher instead of a prostitute. Everyone keeps saying
teachers don't make enough or we need more of them. I agree!
And, where do teachers work? At schools, sometimes of a specialized
variety, aka brothels.
♂|2.15.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Substantive due process is bullcrap.
There is no constitutional rights to sex toys.
|2.15.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Sure there is, Bullcrap. It's called the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution...are reserved...to the People."
♂ aka: Bullcrap|2.15.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Nick,
"The people" obviously do not reserve the power to use sex toys if
they establish laws against such things through their
representatives.
The 10th amendment does not reserve power to individual persons,
but to "the people." In a representative democracy, the will of
"the people" is determined through representation. "The people"
outlawed sex toys.
alisa|2.15.08 @ 1:06PM|#
juris imprudent -- are you saying Lawrence could be overturned? This is worrisome.
|2.15.08 @ 1:07PM|#
"""There is no constitutional rights to sex toys.""
If there were a constitutional right to sex toys would they obey
it?
You have a constitutional right to possess a gun. That doesn't seem
to solve the issue.
Ryan|2.15.08 @ 1:16PM|#
The 14th Amendment, and its nonexistent "right to privacy", are
inapplicable.
Examine the 9th Amendment to find out why all such state
restrictions on liberty, especially that which is private and thus
by definition non-harmful to another, are unconstitutional.
|2.15.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Maybe she could sell you something basixally worthless, for
say $200.00 or whatever, and give you one hour of free sex for
buying it.
We call those "dates". Except sometimes one party doesn't live up
to their implied contractal obligation (I keed, I keed).
|2.15.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Have you ever wondered what Q could have done with sex
toys?
I just did. I possibly need help.
J sub D -- "possibly"? ;)
♂ aka: \"Bullcrap\"|2.15.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Ryan: Examine the 9th Amendment to find out why all such
state restrictions on liberty, especially that which is private and
thus by definition non-harmful to another, are
unconstitutional.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 9th amendment does not apply to rights retained by individual
persons. That would be insane. I could retain the right to egg your
house.
Instead the 9th amendment protects rights retained by "the people."
In a representative democracy, what is and what is not retained by
"the people" is determined through representation. In this case,
"the people" explicitly chose not to retain the right to sex toys
by outlawing them.
Jennifer|2.15.08 @ 1:39PM|#
I refuse to speculate about the possible sexual insecurities
that would inspire a male legislator to make it illegal for women
to own the means of production of orgasms. I absolutely will NOT go
there. Nope.
I will, however, ask if they write these laws with one hand while
protectively clutching their shriveled little weenies with the
other.
Zeb|2.15.08 @ 1:40PM|#
If there is no right to privacy in the constitution, there damn well should be and I really can't have a problem with judges making one up if that's what it takes.
|2.15.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Is Ron Paul going to write an LRC article about this un-American decision by activist judges who believe in a false right to privacy for sexual deviants?
Zeb|2.15.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Jennifer, women aren't supposed to have orgasms at all. Not necessary for makin' babies.
|2.15.08 @ 2:12PM|#
"the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment."
What is this right to privacy you speak of, and how can I get some
for myself?
ChanceH|2.15.08 @ 2:34PM|#
what if you want to a pay a prostitute less than minimum wage. Would that be OK?
Brian Sorgatz|2.15.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Ron Paul is only against the black dildos
Hmm. What does this tell us about Ron Paul (if that's true) or
about Jacob (if that's false)?
Brian Sorgatz|2.15.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Sometimes I'm impulsive with my H&R comments. I'm not even sure I get my own joke about Jacob.
|2.15.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Bullcrap, why would the 10th Amendment say the rights are
reserved to the states or people? If the People are the state
through their representatives, why not just say "reserved to the
states?" It means, if a state doesn't make a law, then there is no
law and each person can decide for themselves. There is nothing I
have read in the writings of the founders that leads me to believe
the were saying groups have rights as opposed to individuals having
rights.
I will agree, however, that in this case, since the State of Texas
decided through their representatives (in other words, the people
turned their right to sex toys over to the state), so you are
correct about what happened, but not about "the People" being the
same as the state as written in the 10th. I think your
interpretation of the amendment is wrong.
|2.15.08 @ 2:52PM|#
"Q: How can you tell if a woman is having an orgasm?
A: Who cares?"
Whether or not I care depends. If she has regular orgasms that
increases her want of sex because she keeps thinking about that
good feeling, and then of course if she goes a short stretch
without having an orgasm, it makes her want to try again soon so
she can have one because she remembers that good feeling and wants
it back. I benefit in both cases.
When I don't benefit is when she goes a while without one, gets
frustrated, and then "gets a headache" for two weeks straight.
|2.15.08 @ 3:21PM|#
There is indeed a danger that this case, which creates an
inter-circuit split, could serve as a vehicle for Lawrence v.
Texas to be modified or overruled. The five justices in the
majority in Lawrence, however, (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter,
Ginsberg and Breyer,) are still on the Supreme Court. (Justice
O'Connor concurred in the result, but based upon different
reasoning.)
The next president will come from a political party that recognizes
and respects a constitutional right to liberty broad enough to
include private, consensual sexual conduct or from a party that
obsesses about who sticks what into whom (and in the case of
vaginal intercourse, the sometime result thereof). The fragility of
the Lawrence majority should give libertarians pause about
electing a president from the party whose members fret about the
sexual orientation of Teletubbies.
|2.15.08 @ 3:29PM|#
in other words, the people turned their right to sex toys
over to the state
No they didn't. Either there is such a right or there isn't. If
there is, then it cannot be turned over to the state - that concept
undermines the very definition of right. A right is a protection an
individual has from some kind of state coercion. If there is a
right, then that right is "owned" by the individual and cannot be
voted away by his neighbor. The question is therefore not
whether it was turned over through a vote or representation, but
whether such a right exists.
robc|2.15.08 @ 3:39PM|#
JsubD,
I just did. I possibly need help.
Before I hovered over the link, I was thinking Q from NextGen
not Q from James Bond.
I know I need help.
robc|2.15.08 @ 3:42PM|#
The right to privacy is clearly located in the 9th amendment, not the 14th. Supreme Court justices are so stupid some times. No need for penumbras if you find it in the 9th.
David McElroy|2.15.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's legal to HAVE sex toys in
Alabama, but it's just not legal to SELL THEM. And there are shops
selling such things that are still open, although the state is
fighting them in court.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1200561310117920.xml&coll=2
Brian Sorgatz|2.15.08 @ 4:07PM|#
I'm not even sure I get my own joke about Jacob.
To further explain that comment, I've recently been adjusting the
level of my (California) Proposition 215 medicine. I had too much
cannabutter with breakfast this morning. I'm too stoned to know all
the possible misconstruings of what I write. Oh, well.
Jennifer|2.15.08 @ 4:14PM|#
I had too much cannabutter with breakfast this morning. I'm
too stoned to know all the possible misconstruings of what I
write.
Nobody likes a braggart, Brian.
|2.15.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Um, Nick ... it was a joke. One of those jokes in which the
humor derives from the unexpected offensiveness of the punch
line.
But your argument is valid.
|2.15.08 @ 4:41PM|#
"""If the People are the state through their representatives,
why not just say "reserved to the states?"""
It's just a guess, but it might have something to do with the
concept that one house of Congress represent the state and the
other house represents the people.
|2.15.08 @ 4:45PM|#
But that would violate my understanding of the definition
"people" with respects to the Constitution which clearly defines
the term in the first 3 words of the preamble. We the people.
The people be we.
The market will fix everything|2.15.08 @ 7:42PM|#
Ron Paul is only against the black
market dildos
Like I said.
|2.16.08 @ 12:07AM|#
What a wonderful future we can look forward to, if only Lawrence
v. Texas would become as trendy an influential a basis for law in
the 21st century as the Commerce Clause was in the 20th.
"The Presumption of Liberty..." What a bracing concept! We should
definitely give it a try!
alisa|2.16.08 @ 12:13AM|#
"The fragility of the Lawrence majority should give libertarians
pause about electing a president from the party whose members fret
about the sexual orientation of Teletubbies."
Well put.
Jacob|2.16.08 @ 1:55AM|#
What a wonderful future we can look forward to, if only
Lawrence v. Texas would become as trendy an influential a basis for
law in the 21st century as the Commerce Clause was in the
20th.
As much as I agree with sexual privacy, I engage in commerce much
more often than I engage in kinky, nasty, tri-racial, inter-species
bondage parties. Being a greedy bastard, I just care about my money
more than my barely-existent sex life.
Do you think that after you have one kinky, nasty, tri-racial,
inter-species bondage party everything else falls into place?
Because if not, I have to cancel some evites for tomorrow
night.
Robert|2.16.08 @ 2:09PM|#
The right to privacy is clearly located in the 9th amendment,
How do you know?
|2.16.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Jacob wrote, "As much as I agree with sexual privacy, I engage
in commerce much more often than I engage in kinky, nasty,
tri-racial, inter-species bondage parties. Being a greedy bastard,
I just care about my money more than my barely-existent sex
life."
But of course, Lawrence is about more than sex. It's about that
"presumption of liberty," with sex being only the lens through
which we view the issue, just as commerce was the lens through
which we viewed liberty in the case of the kinky, nasty,
tri-racial, interspecies contortions of the Commerce Clause during
the 20th century. I expect you already know that, of course.
:-)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245