Federal Court OKs Ban on Sale of Sex Toys

[Lilith]

(submitted by gekkogecko)

By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A federal appeals court Wednesday
upheld a 1998 Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys
in the state, ruling the Constitution doesn't include
a right to sexual privacy.

In a 2-1 decision overturning a lower court, a
three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals (news - web sites) said the state has a right
to police the sale of devices that can be sexually
stimulating.

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites),
which represented merchants and users who sued to
overturn the law, asked the appeals court to rule that
the Constitution included a right to sexual privacy
that the ban on sex toy sales would violate. The court
declined, indicating such a decision could lead down
other paths.

"If the people of Alabama in time decide that a
prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective,
or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be
finished with the matter," the court said.

"On the other hand, if we today craft a new
fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we
would be bound to give that right full force and
effect in all future cases including, for example,
those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity,
and the like."

Attorney General Troy King said the court "has done
its duty" in upholding the law.

Sherri Williams, an adult novelty retailer who filed
the lawsuit with seven other women and two men, called
the decision "depressing."

"I'm just very disappointed that courts feel
Alabamians don't have the right to purchase adult
toys. It's just ludicrous," said Williams, who lives
in Florida and owns Pleasures stores in Huntsville and
Decatur. "I intend to pursue this."

U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. of Huntsville
has twice ruled against the state law, deciding in
2002 that the sex toy ban violated the constitutional
right to privacy. The state appealed both times and
won.

The state law bans only the sale of sex toys, not
their possession, the court said, and it doesn't
regulate other items including condoms or virility
drugs. "The Alabama statute proscribes a relatively
narrow bandwidth of activity," U.S. Circuit Judge
Stanley F. Birch Jr. wrote.

Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett disagreed, saying the
decision was based on the "erroneous foundation" that
adults don't have a right to consensual sexual
intimacy and that private acts can be made a crime in
the name of promoting "public morality."

[lakritze]

When they banned the sale of sex toys through ut the state of Alabama,I am assuming they're including the city of Bumfuck Ala.that I've heard so much about over the years.

[Lilith]

I found this ironic... who is protecting who from what????

Court: Ban on alcohol ads in college newspapers unconstitutional



PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A Pennsylvania law banning paid advertisements for alcohol in college newspapers is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 1996 law, which was intended to combat underage drinking, placed an unfair financial burden on student-run publications and hindered their right to free speech while doing little to achieve its goal.

The law was challenged by The Pitt News, a student-run paper at the University of Pittsburgh.

In a 17-page opinion, Judge Samuel Alito said the state faces a heavy burden anytime it tries to restrict speech, but had offered only "speculation" and "conjecture" to support its contention that the ad ban would slacken the demand for alcohol by underage Pitt students.

"Even if Pitt students do not see alcoholic beverage ads in The Pitt News, they will still be exposed to a torrent of beer ads on television and the radio, and they will still see alcoholic beverage ads in other publications, including the other free weekly Pittsburgh papers that are displayed on campus together with The Pitt News," he wrote.

The law's crafters had tried to avoid a free speech challenge through a technicality: Instead of barring student publications from promoting alcohol, the state made it illegal for them to be paid for doing so.

Alito rejected that strategy.

"If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the First Amendment," he wrote.

The ruling could be a financial boon for other college newspapers, many of which eschew school funding so that they may retain their editorial independence, and are reliant on advertising revenue to survive.

In its lawsuit, The Pitt News said it lost $17,000 in ad sales after the state stepped up enforcement of the ban in 1999. Some bars and restaurants near the campus stopped advertising entirely, rather than alter their ads to remove any reference to alcohol.

The paper's lawsuit was supported by the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, The Student Press Law Center, the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Pennsylvania ACLU Litigation Director Witold Walczak called the court's decision "gratifying" Thursday because of his group's previously unsuccessful challenges to the law.

"This is the tenth time we've asked a court to rule on this issue and this is the first time they've agreed," he said.

Pitt News business manager, Pittsburgh senior Bethany Litzinger, praised the court's ruling and said the advertising ban was well-intentioned, but misguided.

"We did understand the concerns of the legislators. They felt the ads promoted underage drinking. But 70 percent of our readers are over 21," Litzinger said.

After a federal judge initially upheld the law, the newspaper had defiantly begun a feature called "Drink Specials," in which it published beer and mixed-drink prices at local bars free of charge.

A spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general's office declined to comment on the opinion, and said the state had not yet decided whether to appeal.

[WildIrish]

Sherri Williams, an adult novelty retailer who filed
the lawsuit with seven other women and two men, called
the decision "depressing."



Good choice of words. Especially considering that the king of all sex toys...the vibrator...was invented to help cure women of depression.