D
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Guest
Legal
Court overturns Texas ban on sex toys
Federal appeals court says law violates constitutional right to privacy.
By Steven Kreytak
American-Statesman Staff
THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A federal appeals court has struck down a Texas law that
makes it a crime to promote or sell sex toys.
"Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these
devices," said an opinion written by Justice Thomas M.
Reavley of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
Orleans, "government interference with their personal and
private use violates the Constitution."
Under Texas law it is illegal to sell, advertise, give or
lend obscene devices, defined as a device used primarily
for sexual stimulation. Anyone in possession of six or more
sexual devices is considered to be promoting them.
The Texas law dates back to the 1970s and is seldom
enforced. Travis County prosecutors say that they haven't
charged anyone with a sexual device-related crime in at
least the past seven years, and probably much longer.
In 2003, a woman in the Fort Worth suburb of Burleson drew
nationwide attention when she was arrested for selling
erotic toys at a Tupperware-type party. The charges against
Joanne Webb were later dropped.
In addition to Texas, whose law has survived previous state
court challenges, three other states have a similar sex
toys statute: Mississippi, Alabama and Virginia. Laws in
Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado and Georgia have been thrown
out by courts in recent years.
The 2-1 opinion by a panel of the 5th Circuit was based
heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, which struck down a Texas law
prohibiting private consensual sex among people of the same
sex.
That case established a broad constitutional right to
sexual privacy.
On the heels of that landmark ruling, Reliable Consultants
Inc. sued Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle and
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in 2004 in U.S. District
Court in Austin.
They sought a declaratory judgment prohibiting the
enforcement of the statute. Reliable Consultants at the
time operated adult-oriented stores in Texas including two
Dreamers stores and Le Rouge Boutique in Austin. The
plaintiffs were later joined by PHE Inc., which operates an
online and mail order adult store called Adam and Eve. The
plaintiffs were never prosecuted but argued that because of
the law their business was hindered and their customers
were deprived of buying sex toys.
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel in Austin dismissed the
lawsuit after finding that there is no constitutionally
protected right to publicly promote obscene devices.
On appeal, lawyers for the State of Texas, which had
replaced Abbott as a defendant, argued that the Lawrence
case invalidates laws that target private conduct but not
laws prohibiting any commercial conduct. Justice Rhesa H.
Barksdale agreed with that logic in his dissent.
The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate
"morality based" reasons for the laws, which include
"discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the
pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation."
A spokesman for Abbott, who filed the brief for the state
and for Earle in court, declined to comment. They can ask
for review of the case by the entire court, appeal to the
U.S. Supreme Court or allow the case to return to Austin,
where Yeakel would likely enter an order that would end
enforcement of the law.
Jennifer Kinsley, a Cincinnati-based lawyer for Reliable
Consultants, whose firm represents adult businesses
nationwide, applauded the court's ruling and said it would
aid her clients and their customers.
"We believe that the rights of ordinary people are being
violated by this law, and we are very happy this no longer
is valid," Kinsley said.
More On This Story
5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/02/021408sextoy_opinion.pdf
More at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/14/0214sextoys.html
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Court overturns Texas ban on sex toys
Federal appeals court says law violates constitutional right to privacy.
By Steven Kreytak
American-Statesman Staff
THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A federal appeals court has struck down a Texas law that
makes it a crime to promote or sell sex toys.
"Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these
devices," said an opinion written by Justice Thomas M.
Reavley of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
Orleans, "government interference with their personal and
private use violates the Constitution."
Under Texas law it is illegal to sell, advertise, give or
lend obscene devices, defined as a device used primarily
for sexual stimulation. Anyone in possession of six or more
sexual devices is considered to be promoting them.
The Texas law dates back to the 1970s and is seldom
enforced. Travis County prosecutors say that they haven't
charged anyone with a sexual device-related crime in at
least the past seven years, and probably much longer.
In 2003, a woman in the Fort Worth suburb of Burleson drew
nationwide attention when she was arrested for selling
erotic toys at a Tupperware-type party. The charges against
Joanne Webb were later dropped.
In addition to Texas, whose law has survived previous state
court challenges, three other states have a similar sex
toys statute: Mississippi, Alabama and Virginia. Laws in
Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado and Georgia have been thrown
out by courts in recent years.
The 2-1 opinion by a panel of the 5th Circuit was based
heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, which struck down a Texas law
prohibiting private consensual sex among people of the same
sex.
That case established a broad constitutional right to
sexual privacy.
On the heels of that landmark ruling, Reliable Consultants
Inc. sued Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle and
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in 2004 in U.S. District
Court in Austin.
They sought a declaratory judgment prohibiting the
enforcement of the statute. Reliable Consultants at the
time operated adult-oriented stores in Texas including two
Dreamers stores and Le Rouge Boutique in Austin. The
plaintiffs were later joined by PHE Inc., which operates an
online and mail order adult store called Adam and Eve. The
plaintiffs were never prosecuted but argued that because of
the law their business was hindered and their customers
were deprived of buying sex toys.
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel in Austin dismissed the
lawsuit after finding that there is no constitutionally
protected right to publicly promote obscene devices.
On appeal, lawyers for the State of Texas, which had
replaced Abbott as a defendant, argued that the Lawrence
case invalidates laws that target private conduct but not
laws prohibiting any commercial conduct. Justice Rhesa H.
Barksdale agreed with that logic in his dissent.
The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate
"morality based" reasons for the laws, which include
"discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the
pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation."
A spokesman for Abbott, who filed the brief for the state
and for Earle in court, declined to comment. They can ask
for review of the case by the entire court, appeal to the
U.S. Supreme Court or allow the case to return to Austin,
where Yeakel would likely enter an order that would end
enforcement of the law.
Jennifer Kinsley, a Cincinnati-based lawyer for Reliable
Consultants, whose firm represents adult businesses
nationwide, applauded the court's ruling and said it would
aid her clients and their customers.
"We believe that the rights of ordinary people are being
violated by this law, and we are very happy this no longer
is valid," Kinsley said.
5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/02/021408sextoy_opinion.pdf
More at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/14/0214sextoys.html
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.