Court overturns Texas ban on sex toys

[Meshavrischika]

So what constitutes a sex toy? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? A but plug? Handcuffs? A feather? Silk sheets? Personal lubricant? BABY OIL?!?!?

I agree. It's very subjective.

I think they do define it... but I can't find it ATM.

 

[gengwall]

So what constitutes a sex toy? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? A but plug? Handcuffs? A feather? Silk sheets? Personal lubricant? BABY OIL?!?!?

I think it was described in some detail in the law. It all related to stimulation of the genitals as the primary use of the product. The link in the OP has itself a link to the opinion which contains all the info one should need.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I think it was described in some detail in the law. It all related to stimulation of the genitals as the primary use of the product. The link in the OP has itself a link to the opinion which contains all the info one should need.

let's close down grocery stores for selling KY Warming then... lol.

 

[horuhe00]

...this is TX. Only place I know of where I can find two churches, an adult video store and a nude bar all at the same intersection, but heaven forbid we sell adult toys.

Could you please tell me what intersection that is? I want to Google Earth it.

 

[gengwall]

A lubricant is not a "device" in the context of the law so it wouldn't be included.

 

[Meshavrischika]

A lubricant is not a "device" in the context of the law so it wouldn't be included.

i was kidding

in the spirit of the idea for the law though, it's used for the same purpose.... sexual stimulation outside "sex" sometimes. again, we're reverting to the law is stupid rather than it's constitutionality, but it's hard to get past the stupidity aspect.

 

[gengwall]

OK everyone. Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say the headline was actually "Court Overturns Texas Ban On Guns". Lets say the circumstances are otherwise exactly the same - the law banned the sale, advertising, and promotion of guns but not gun possession or use (i.e. hunting and recreational shooting). The gun retailers challenge the law on second amendment grounds saying that a ban on sale is a de facto ban on use. What say all you sex toy enthusiasts. I suspect many of the more liberal folks here would raise quite a loud cry against the court in that case because they would have supported the gun sale ban. Time for some intellectual honesty folks. Would the courts decision overturning a gun ban be just as welcomed as this one.

It goes beyond that. There are bans both state and federal on the advertisement of cigarettes. Should they be overturned. There are dry counties and municipalities all over the country that ban the sale, promotion, and advertisment of liquor. Should they now be made to allow the sale of liquor? Where do you draw the line on what commerce government can and can't regulate? Are you consistent, or do your opinions waver depending on your personal opinion about the product in question?

 

[Meshavrischika]

OK everyone. Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say the headline was actually "Court Overturns Texas Ban On Guns". Lets say the circumstances are otherwise exactly the same - the law banned the sale, advertising, and promotion of guns but not gun possession or use (i.e. hunting and recreational shooting). The gun retailers challenge the law on second amendment grounds saying that a ban on sale is a de facto ban on use. What say all you sex toy enthusiasts. I suspect many of the more liberal folks here would raise quite a loud cry against the court in that case because they would have supported the gun sale ban. Time for some intellectual honesty folks. Would the courts decision overturning a gun ban be just as welcomed as this one.

It goes beyond that. There are bans both state and federal on the advertisement of cigarettes. Should they be overturned. There are dry counties and municipalities all over the country that ban the sale, promotion, and advertisment of liquor. Should they now be made to allow the sale of liquor? Where do you draw the line on what commerce government can and can't regulate? Are you consistent, or do your opinions waver depending on your personal opinion about the product in question?

For me, yes. (the gun thing)

cigarette ads should be just as free (sorry). it should be up to the people who own the VENUE for the ads to turn them down (and they should have the right to do so) not to the government to make sure they do "the right thing". this is the kind of thing that takes power AWAY from every day people (the power of their money and the withholding of such) and puts it in the hand of government.

I live in a dry county. It's stupid. They just drive across the border, get beer, come back and drink publically anyway. It doesn't in any way lessen drinking, or drinking related crime... in fact, I'd say it promotes drunken driving in some instances.

The line is that CONSUMERS should limit commerce by their $$$... not by laws.

 

[gengwall]

For me, yes. (the gun thing)

cigarette ads should be just as free (sorry). it should be up to the people who own the VENUE for the ads to turn them down (and they should have the right to do so) not to the government to make sure they do "the right thing". this is the kind of thing that takes power AWAY from every day people (the power of their money and the withholding of such) and puts it in the hand of government.

I live in a dry county. It's stupid. They just drive across the border, get beer, come back and drink publically anyway. It doesn't in any way lessen drinking, or drinking related crime... in fact, I'd say it promotes drunken driving in some instances.

The line is that CONSUMERS should limit commerce by their $$$... not by laws.

Ok, I hear you, but here is the issue again: is "stupid" the same as unconstitutional? Are those laws against cigarettes, liquor, guns (hypothetically), or sex toys unconstitutional? That is the only thing the court can address.

My premise is that many here will NOT think a ban on guns is stupid and therefore would applaud such a law and decry it's removal by the court, while they cheer for the removal of essentially equivalent laws they DO think are stupid. You have remained consistent - you pass the test.

(Whether I want you as a federal appealate judge is a whole nother thing )

 

[Meshavrischika]

Ok, I hear you, but here is the issue again: is "stupid" the same as unconstitutional? Are those laws against cigarettes, liquor, guns (hypothetically), or sex toys unconstitutional? That is the only thing the court can address.

My premise is that many here will NOT think a ban on guns is stupid and therefore would applaud such a law and decry it's removal by the court, while they cheer for the removal of essentially equivalent laws they DO think are stupid. You have remained consistent - you pass the test.

(Whether I want you as a federal appealate judge is a whole nother thing )

I think it is, but again, not a lawyer... not a judge. I do agree it should be done 100% on constitutionality, and not on stupidity/morality/politics, etc.

No one wants me as a judge. You're not alone.

 

[horuhe00]

Are you consistent, or do your opinions waver depending on your personal opinion about the product in question?

Absolutely!

 

[gengwall]

Absolutely!

Oh boy, a response from the consistently vague.

Everybody join in now and sing along to that great Rush lyric:

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"

 

[PassionFruit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXU...blog/archives/2008/02/13/good-news-for-texas/

Here's a video that may help.

 

[SteveAtheist]

ahh, the so called "seperation of church and state". reading the first amendment, I see no violation here. The federal government had no authority to strike down this law and as much as historical revisionists would like you to believe that this seperation exists at all levels of government, it's simply not true. heck, states had their own official Christian churches back in the day.

This law was not unconstitutional because of the first amendment. This law was unconsitutional because it could not pass the 'rational basis' test. Which stems from Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18, that "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Basically, the goverment needs a rational basis to show that the law is necessary. And, in case you were wondering, religion and/or morality arguments to not pass the rational basis test.

 

[gengwall]

This law was not unconstitutional because of the first amendment. This law was unconsitutional because it could not pass the 'rational basis' test. Which stems from Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18, that "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Basically, the goverment needs a rational basis to show that the law is necessary. And, in case you were wondering, religion and/or morality arguments to not pass the rational basis test.

And if I'm not mistaken, the defense felt that using standard obsenity law rationale would indeed suffice as a rational basis. Is that how you read it?

 

[SteveAtheist]

And if I'm not mistaken, the defense felt that using standard obsenity law rationale would indeed suffice as a rational basis. Is that how you read it?

It seemed like the initial judge in Austin used the 'obsenity law' rationale in his judgement, but the state argued that the law was 'morality based', which is probably why the appeals court decided it was unconsitutional. What is considered obscene is extremely hard to define, especially when such material would be easy to hide from public view. Texas would have a tough time making the argument that selling this devices discretely in a store is any more 'obscene' then selling inappropriate contentography. But, 'rational basis' and 'right to privacy' seem to be why the law was overturned.

 

[kiwimac]

The question is: are Texan's barking mad? What an, you'll pardon me for saying, idiotic law!

 

[kiwimac]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXU...blog/archives/2008/02/13/good-news-for-texas/

Here's a video that may help.

LOVE that video!

 

[UberLutheran]

Now, if we can get a judge to overturn silly laws in Texas prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages or the purchase of cars on Sunday, we'll be set...

Guess it never occurred to the Lege that some people might be non-Christians, or there might be Christians who don't have a moral problem drinking alcohol or purchasing a car on Sundays.

 

[gengwall]

Now, if we can get a judge to overturn silly laws in Texas prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages or the purchase of cars on Sunday, we'll be set...

Guess it never occurred to the Lege that some people might be non-Christians, or there might be Christians who don't have a moral problem drinking alcohol or purchasing a car on Sundays.

we've touched on that already. Do you consider those laws unconstitutional? Using what rationale? Or do you believe being "silly" is enough grounds to overturn a law that is otherwise and in every way constitutional?