Reason TV says it’s the Alabama Supreme Court, “for upholding a state law that bans the selling of ‘any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.’” But I’d say that it was the Alabama Legislature that was the real nanny there.
-
Contact
-
Search
Stuff From Us
Categories
Archives
Blogroll
- 3 Jews, 4 Opinions
- Agoraphilia
- Althouse
- Andrew Sullivan
- Bainbridge
- Balkinization
- Becker-Posner
- Best of the Web
- Betsy's Page
- Blue Mass. Group
- Cal. App. Report
- Cal. Punitives
- CalPundit
- Cathy Young
- Chequer-Board
- Chicago Faculty Blog
- Concurring Opinions
- Conglomerate
- Copyrights & Campaigns
- CrimLaw
- Dan Drezner
- Dave Kopel
- David Frum
- Day by Day
- Deep Glamour
- Discourse.Net
- ecitsuJ
- Election Law
- Emmanuelle Richard
- Empirical Legal Studies
- Eric Muller
- Fed Soc Debates
- Former Chef
- GeekPress
- Gideon's Trumpet
- Gil Milbauer
- Hit & Run
- How Appealing
- InstaPundit
- Joanne Jacobs
- Jotwell
- KausFiles
- Knowledge Problem
- Language Log
- LawCulture
- Lawrence Solum
- Legal Planet
- Liberty & Power
- Lileks
- Marginal Revolution
- Marquette Faculty Blog
- Matt Welch
- Matt Yglesias
- Michael Barone
- Michael Dorf
- Neuroethics & Law Blog
- NoodleFood
- Opinio Juris
- OpinionJournal Federation
- Overlawyered
- OxBlog
- Point of Law
- PrawfsBlawg
- Reality-Based Community
- Reason
- Religion Clause
- Right Coast
- Room for Debate
- Rosenbergs
- ScrappleFace
- Secular Right
- Sentencing Law & Policy
- Sonia Arrison
- Stuart Buck
- Technology Liberation Front
- The Opening Brief
- The Torch
- Tom Palmer
- Truth on the Market
- U Chicago Law Faculty Blog
- Virginia Postrel
- Wonkette
- WSJ Law Blog
Meta
-
ShelbyC says:
And not the good kind of nanny.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:16 pmloki13 says:
An uncommonly silly law?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:19 pmDave N says:
I agree. Reason TV confuses the role of the Courts, which decides whether a law is constitutional, with the role of the Legislature, which decides whether a law, however stupid, passes in the first place.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:22 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I take that the law bans selling, but not possessing. Stanley v. Georgia is still good law, isn’t it?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:25 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Is that nanny or ninny?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:27 pmMark B. says:
It’s a simple marketing challenge, and the key word is “primarily.”
Sell the stimulating product as an adjunct to, say, a vacuum cleaner.
The people of Alabama will be happy, and their houses will be uncommonly clean.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:51 pmMalvolio says:
If Stanley v. Georgia still applies (I believe it does) and mail-order is protected under the Commerce Clause (which I am almost certain of), then no Georgian with a credit card and a mailbox need go with the devices he or she feels he needs.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:52 pmneurodoc says:
The problem isn’t in Georgia, it’s in Alabama. And Mark B’s “adjunctive” work-around solution is a great one!
Quote
October 1, 2009, 4:58 pmJoe Kowalski says:
This is why in many mail catalogues, there are long, tube shaped “Neck Massagers” being advertised as such with an attractive woman pictured using the device on her neck. Now if the buyer uses it on other parts of his or her body, that’s the buyer’s problem.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:40 pmDavid McCourt says:
Government has no business legalizing all this stuff, and thereby taking the illicit fun out of it. Sex is supposed to be dirty, and the non-nanny state is ruining it.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:45 pmDaniel Chapman says:
If malvolio is correct (and I think he is), this law seems perfectly reasonable. People can do what they like in their homes, but the people of Atlanta don’t have to put up with sex toy shops on the side of the interstate.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:20 pmAbnormally anonymous says:
Normally I post under a different name, but on this topic...ahem...
Daniel Chapman:
That may be the final outcome, but a, um, personal experience yesterday indicated that at least until the court rules, mail order/internet sex toy sellers aren’t selling to Alabamans. In general, businesses don’t want to put themselves out as test cases for a criminal law–with respect to any law, not just this one.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:33 pmHenry says:
Who needs Stanley v. Georgia? Griswold will do it, plus the law violates substantive due process for being irrational. As for stores on the interstate, zoning is permissible.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:38 pmrpt says:
What is the position of Alabama’s senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:51 pmArthurKirkland says:
Anybody adult still residing in Alabama can blame only himself.
For the children, there is pity and hope of eventual escape.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:52 pmArthurKirkland says:
What is the position of Alabama’s senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions?
I don’t think anyone can say for sure until the Vitter/Spitzer/Sanford/Pickering/Edwards/Ensign-style revelations occur.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:53 pmChrisTS says:
Sure, Arthur, but by the time they are no longer kids, they will be so far behind in toys.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:37 pmArthurKirkland says:
For a child in Alabama, the quality of available toys seems low on the list of obstacles to be overcome.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:55 pmCornellian says:
The wording of the statute is interesting. It doesn’t actually criminalize objects primarily useful for the stimulation of the genitals, only devices designed or marketed as such. Thus, if you make a device that actually is primarily useful for that purpose, you’re free to sell it in Alabama so long as you didn’t design it with that in mind or market it that way. The design part is easy to cover up — just make sure all the evidence is in some foreign jurisdiction where an Alabama state prosecutor can’t get at it and of course any decent ad agency can put together a “wink wink nudge nudge” ad campaign for you.
It’s a silly law of course, but then the state didn’t get its nickname “Talabama” by accident.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:57 pmwm13 says:
It’s so typical of the staff of Reason that they get really upset about the “right” to use vibrators, while evincing no interest in grown up topics like taxes, regulation, etc. Is there a libertarian with a mental age over 15? Because I haven’t met him or her.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 9:09 pmMalvolio says:
We’re avoiding you.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 9:16 pmPyrrho says:
“‘any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.’”
Hmm...“human genital organs”? So Alabama doesn’t have a problem with animal sex toys?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:49 pmbrenatevi says:
Crikey. So many jokes, so little time.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 12:03 amGuy says:
It would be pretty hilarious if the legislature omitted the word “human” and the result was that collecting horse semen for sale to breeders was prohibited.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 1:25 amlonetown says:
I think nannies are hot!
Quote
October 2, 2009, 3:15 amdevil's advocate says:
You’re all missing the point. This is responsible anti-tobacco policy as the legislature fully expects that cigars fall under this category.
Brian
Quote
October 2, 2009, 3:39 amArkady says:
Hmm...
What if it’s secondarily useful for the stimulation of, etc.–like an electric toothbrush (don’t laugh, I read it on the internets)? Would that be something like a lesser included device?
Quote
October 2, 2009, 4:31 amAultimer says:
You meet us all the time, you just don’t recognize us when we’re agreeing with so-called conservatives or so-called liberals. Or maybe it’s because you only read the stuff about pr0n and the like.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 6:21 amDon says:
Is there anything more blatantly obvious than the fingertip massager?
Quote
October 2, 2009, 6:35 amI don't think so says:
So is this why the Hitachi “magic wand is sold as a massager, and with it, you get two “free” attachments?
Quote
October 2, 2009, 6:40 am11-B/20.B4 says:
Ad hominem much? Nothing to see here folks, just the government trying to regulate masturbatory aids, you know those crazy Libertarians, always up in arms about their pot and porn. If you tab over to Reason right this moment, the top articles (in order) are: Second Amendment, Health Care, Due Process (terrorism suspects), National Economics and Afghanistan. This is a humorous monthly bit provided by Reason.tv, and yes, it is relevant and interesting, and the subject matter is titillating, so viola! perfect for a one-minute teaser. It’s funny because it is so infantile. What is worse? The fact that a somber, august body of southern governmental types took the time to worry about this, or that some Libertarians called them on it? Now I agree the legislature should be the real target, but the whole point of this is to reveal the sheer pettiness of government. They want to regulate EVERYTHING, from your snacks to your pets to your *ahem* personal massager. The point is that if the rest of the laws are followed, why isn’t an adult allowed to ask for what they really want, instead of playing some sort of advertising innuendo game?
Quote
October 2, 2009, 6:54 amRandy says:
David Chapman: “f malvolio is correct (and I think he is), this law seems perfectly reasonable. People can do what they like in their homes, but the people of Atlanta don’t have to put up with sex toy shops on the side of the interstate.”
You mean like how I have to put up with churches on our streets?
Besides, you need a place where all the fine upstanding citizens of Atlanta can go on the down low, so to speak.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 7:12 amyankee says:
I still want to know why Alabama thinks vibrators are for perverts, but whips, chains, handcuffs, and anal toys are all good clean fun.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 7:21 amjss says:
The legislature or the court? I suggest the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.
Touch of humor there (here).
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:10 amOren says:
Reverse missionary.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:10 amChrisTS says:
But as long as they cannot read...toys seem a reasonable concern. :-) (‘pologies, ‘Bamans)
Quote
October 2, 2009, 12:30 pmspeedwell says:
“By the side of the Interstate”? Hmm, when I lived in Atlanta, the adult toy store we went to was in Buckhead... um, I mean, of course the fine, upstanding people of Atlanta would never put up with such a shocking thing....
Quote
October 2, 2009, 12:45 pmChrisTS says:
Hey, I remember that one. There was another at the top of my street in the Highlands.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 3:53 pmChrisTS says:
uh. Not that I noticed them, of course.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 3:53 pmmarkm says:
Don’t you people ever think of the children? Think of the trauma when a little kid catches his mother using these things!
Because few Alabamans are smart enough to lock the bedroom door. (Or at least it looks that way, if you take the legislature as a sample.)
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:02 ammuriel schwenck says:
A store in San Francisco called “Good Vibrations” sells a wide variety of pleasure devices. Some were in the shape of stylized animals and such and came in every color but flesh. The salesperson said they were from Japan and were for places where graphic sex toys were forbidden — instead one could use an very elongated stylized bear with multiple vibrating and gyrating settings powered by batteries or adapters.
Quote
October 9, 2009, 12:05 am