Sex toy ban upheld in AL, adult gizmos = illegal devices

February 15, 2007 – 3:44 pm

This just in, snip from Xbiz:

In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Alabama statute banning the commercial distribution of sex toys, saying that there is no fundamental right to privacy raised by the plaintiff’s case against the law.

According to the statute, it is ‘unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.’

Link, and the American Consitutional Society blog has more: Link (thanks Violet Blue and Jason Schultz).

Previously on BB:

  • Sex toys still banned in Alabama, guns okay

  • Court upholds sex toy ban, no fundamental right to dildos
  • Texas sex toy ruling by Supreme Court: guns yes! vibrators no!
  • New TSA restrictions and sex toys: whither the lube?

    Reader commment: Jason Gill says,

    Considering that they narrowly worded the statute, do you think that
    the law in Alabama allows for devices marketed as useful for the
    stimulation of non-human animal genitals? Just slap a “Cats love it!
    NOT FOR USE ON HUMAN GENITAL ORGANS” label on your Hello Kitty
    Vibrator and you are in business.

    The Alabama legislature must be a bunch of sick bestiality types to
    let this sort of thing slip by, but I think that probably goes without
    saying.

    Devin Binger says,

    I am certain that the bill specifies human genitals when banning sex
    toys in order to avoid prohibiting devices for the collection of
    animal semen for breeding. One such device was featured on Boing
    Boing: Link


    1. One Response to “Sex toy ban upheld in AL, adult gizmos = illegal devices”

    2. I thought that sex toys, at the time of the constitution’s writing; were usually hand-made, or ahh..impromptu.. thus we would find no constitutional protection against their possession or ownership. If I EVER hear of a case of a person using a dildo, of any sort; to defend their life,or that of a third person; or their Nation; I personally will push that the Lord-God Obama proclaim dildoes (by whatever name) be covered under the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. Of course, ‘Rights’ cannot, by law, be denied, as opposed to ‘Priveledges’, which can. I’ll go back to my life, now…

      By don.b on Feb 16, 2009

    Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.