[cpg35223]

There are quite a few of those stores doing business in Birmingham. The legislation was actually slipped into another bill unnoticed. So I get the feeling that nobody's interested in enforcing the law.

[bluebeard]

Currently stuff is labeled "for novelty use only". those would be some expensive novelties.
i would think it to be unconstitutional because it doesn't hurt anyone, so how could it justifiably be banned. but its hardly the largest injustice in our land today. just, like said, stupid. there are more important battles to be fought.
while there may be sex stores in existence, they are constantly fighting legal battles, but maybe not under this specific law. probably it's under local laws.
meanwhile we have the seediest strip clubs where i'm sure the girls get treated like dirt. if the girls were made of plastic it would be illegal.
i didn't realize the ban was passed so recently. i just assumed it was an old law leftover on the books that people won't let go of, like liquor laws.

[zenjenn]

I would think it to be unconstitutional because it doesn't hurt anyone, so how could it justifiably be banned

Well, it is a matter of states' rights. There's nothing in the constitution that says things have to be legal as long as they don't hurt anyone. There's a lot of weird, arguably harmless things that are illegal in various states.

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by zenjenn

Well, it is a matter of states' rights. There's nothing in the constitution that says things have to be legal as long as they don't hurt anyone. There's a lot of weird, arguably harmless things that are illegal in various states.

Because a law exists doesn't mean its constitutional. I don't know what else follows "the pursuit of happiness" more than a sex toy, heh. states rights take a back seat to individual's civil rights.

[marmac]

Alabama has --real--men !

Thus no need to have sex toys.

[southernnaturelover]

In the end nobody cares about the law or even thinks about it, because like cpg said, it doesn't get enforced.

[Reactionary]

bluebeard - the US Supreme Court says the law is ok. So not only does the law exist, it has been tested, ruled constitutional, and is occasionally enforced.

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

State Senator Tom Butler (D - 2) of Madison sponsored the Bill. Butler is up for re-election and is opposed by Madison City Councilman Bill Holtzclaw (R). More:

Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 4 Obscenity and Related Offenses, Division 5 Alabama Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act.



http://www.legislature.state.al.us/C...975/148424.htm

The law went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the law Constitutional.

Threestep - as long as you don't sell your collection it might be OK. There have been protests where people gave away 'obscene devices' and weren't arrested (no sale).

A strict reading of the law would ban Viagra and penile implants as well. It is hard to take some of the laws seriously when the Atty General is for gambling, and the state Supreme Court says no. "But daddy said I could..."

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

bluebeard - the US Supreme Court says the law is ok. So not only does the law exist, it has been tested, ruled constitutional, and is occasionally enforced.

I didn't say anything that contradicts that

I actually don't think the law is much a big deal. It's just kinda stupid. I do think its unlawful, but like I said, there's a million more important issues out there. Maybe if I were kinkier I would think its more vital to my interests, but I don't find myself needing to visit a sex shop all that much. It's hardly a major injustice in our nation.

However, if your point is that you always agree with what the US Supreme Court says is constitutionally correct, then you must agree with Roe vs Wade. Cool.
Also, did you agree with the Dred Scott decision? Actually, the the later Supreme Court disagreed with the earlier Supreme Court on that on. If gay marriage is declared legal as it will eventually (whether as states rights, or as a nationwide civil rights issue) will you agree with that too?
How about that decision on eminent domain most people thought was ridiculous? Was that constitutional? Even the individual justices, and come to think of it the founding fathers themselves, have/had disagreements on what is constitutional.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by bluebeard

I didn't say anything that contradicts that

I actually don't think the law is much a big deal. It's just kinda stupid. I do think its unlawful, but like I said, there's a million more important issues out there. Maybe if I were kinkier I would think its more vital to my interests, but I don't find myself needing to visit a sex shop all that much. It's hardly a major injustice in our nation.

However, if your point is that you always agree with what the US Supreme Court says is constitutionally correct, then you must agree with Roe vs Wade. Cool.
Also, did you agree with the Dred Scott decision? Actually, the the later Supreme Court disagreed with the earlier Supreme Court on that on. If gay marriage is declared legal as it will eventually (whether as states rights, or as a nationwide civil rights issue) will you agree with that too?
How about that decision on eminent domain most people thought was ridiculous? Was that constitutional? Even the individual justices, and come to think of it the founding fathers themselves, have/had disagreements on what is constitutional.

Yep. Although I don't think we'll have any equivalents of the March On Washington by people demanding the right to buy dildos, flavored panties, or vibrators. Just sayin'.