I'll be honest. When this story first broke, I paid it little attention. It just seemed like something that Alabama would absolutely do. Somehow, today, the story caught my interest. I was reading Above The Law and came across this link. Which, of course, led me here.
What really caught my eye were these two quotes: Public morality can still serve as a legitimate rational basis for regulating commercial activity, which is not a private activity, Supreme Court justices wrote in the opinion issued Friday. And, even better: As the Eleventh Circuit in Williams IV pithily and somewhat coarsely stated: There is nothing 'private' or 'consensual' about the advertising and sale of a dildo.
I can't seem to get my head around this. I did search, quite in vain, for the slip copy of the Supreme Court's decision, only to find that for a mere $17 I could have it. That absolutely sucks, but isn't my point. (However, law should not be only for those who can afford it.)
So, is the issue here the commercialization of such shops? In that case, how 'bout we ban gun advertising? Something tells me that a lot more people have been harmed with guns than have with dildoes.
And oh, how I love the ACLU. It fought the law declaring illegal the sale of "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs. And it lost. But at least it tried. And folks, in this story, they quoted the Alabama Attorney General as saying, "a ban on the sale of sexual devices and related orgasm-stimulating paraphernalia is rationally related to a legitimate legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex."
I would really like to know how. Honestly. If you can explain it to me, please let me know and we'll have a very interesting conversation.
But with things like this happening, how can anyone be worried about sex toys (excuse me, "marital aids")?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment