Mississippi: Ban on Sale of Sex Toys Upheld

In 2003, a federal appeals court stuck down a ban on the commercial distribution of sex toys in Alabama, ruling that "The fundamental right of privacy, long recognised by the Supreme Court as inherent among our constitutional protections, incorporates a right to sexual privacy." Well, the Mississippi State Supreme Court has refused to applied the same reasoning there.

The First Amendment Center reports:

Hinds County Chancellor Bill Singletary ruled in 2003 that state law does not extend the right to privacy to the commercial sale of sexual devices. He said state government had an interest in "protecting public physical and mental health and supporting public morality." Presiding Justice Bill Waller Jr., writing yesterday for the court, said ... there was no fundamental right of access to buy sexual devices. He said while a federal court found a similar Alabama law was unconstitutional, other courts — including ones in Georgia, Louisiana and Texas — have rejected attempts to expand the right to privacy to include the commercial sale of sex toys.

Is there any particular reason not to think that decisions such as this (and the fact that Alabama continues to keep trying to ban sex toys) is clear evidence that these states are repressed, repressive, uptight, and far too self-righteous for their own good? I mean, what possible redeeming qualities could there be to a legislature that spends time trying to ban the sale of vibrators? I'm not talking about adopting a particularly strict constitutional interpretation thus being doubtful that one can reasonably argue that there is a "right to privacy" that would cover the sale of sex toys - that's not a ludicrous position. I'm talking about actually trying to ban such devices and saying that the government should ban such devices.

That's completely going off the deep end. With a rock chained to your feet.

Read More:

• Fundamentalism
• Religious Right
• Christian Extremism
• Evangelicalism