The Cincinnati Post reports:
Common Pleas Court Judge Richard Niehaus . . . suggested this may be one of the last obscenity cases of its kind if U.S. Supreme Court rulings are considered.
In an Alabama case, a woman was arrested and charged with pandering obscenity for selling “marital aids” and sex toys. Although it is legal to possess the items, Alabama courts ruled, it is illegal to sell them.
The U.S. Supreme Court considered the case and ruled that making it illegal to sell the sex toys was tantamount to preventing people from possessing them, thus violating the rights of privacy of those who want them.
“If (that Alabama case) is upheld, prosecutors must show overwhelming public interest in preventing the sale of (sex toys),” Niehaus said Wednesday.
Following that logic, the judge added, it would be similar to make the same ruling about adult videos and material.
But he declined to make that ruling in this case.
“It’s not for a trial court to make a decision of this magnitude,” Niehaus said.
Sirkin agreed and said after Jenkins was convicted that his was the perfect case to appeal based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Alabama case. . . .
Well, it would be, if such a U.S. Supreme Court ruling exists — but it doesn’t. There has been no U.S. Supreme Court case that “ruled that making it illegal to sell the sex toys was tantamount to preventing people from possessing them, thus violating the rights of privacy of those who want them.” There is a federal trial court case that so held, Williams v. Pryor, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (N.D. Ala. 2002), but surely that’s a much less influential precedent than a U.S. Supreme Court decision would be.
Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer to the story.
Comments are closed.