March 01, 2005
Respecting the law . . .
Well, it's my policy here, if not to literally bend over backwards, to at least attempt to be fair to both sides.
So I feel obligated to give the law the respect it deserves.
And the fact is, Alabama's legislators have made it a crime to sell marital aids like dildos:
Sell "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs" and risk a $10,000 fine and a year in jail. A Southern jail.Wait. Let's stop right there. While it strikes me as more than a little ridiculous (and in my view unconstitutional) to criminalize dildos and other sex toys, what on earth is going on with this exemption for judicial or law enforcement purposes? I mean, why should judges and cops be allowed to play around with these things while ordinary citizens have to get by without them?
How might this make the United States look internationally? (To say nothing of the Arab "street....")
Hmmmm..... And, considering the judicial and law enforcement exemptions, why isn't there an exemption for military purposes?
Or, how about journalistic purposes? Don't journalists work long and hard on their stories, and don't they need to conduct in depth field research?
What about our constitutionally protected protected right to freedom of expression? If we can burn bras or flags to make a statement, why can't we wave dildos? Might the "fair use" doctrine also apply?
How about eunuchs? They have enough problems not getting enough sex as it is, and they've apparently needed artificial help in the form of dildos since ancient times. Is it really fair to deprive them?
And, at the risk of sounding facetious, I must ask: why would a judge need a dildo any more than anyone else? To discipline errant attorneys?
Hey don't laugh. It happened. In California:
[Judge Geiler] invited a deputy public defender into chambers, produced a battery-powered dildo, and proceeded to thrust the object in the area of the attorney’s buttocks. Later, during the attorney’s cross-examination of a witness in open court, the judge suggested the dildo might be used to speed up the public defender’s cross-examination, a suggestion that the Supreme Court concluded was made with the intent of curtailing cross-examination.Actually, the dildo mainly served to get Judge Geiler in a whole heap of trouble.
So, as a matter of public policy, why are judges being exempted from this law?
What's the bottom line?
And how on earth are dildos to be legitimately used in police work? The only law enforcement use I can imagine would most likely be considered entrapment.
Well, there's always Tom of Finland. (But surely the legislators weren't thinking along these lines....)
Hey, I'm trying to give the law the respect it deserves.
As the saying goes, bad cases make hard law.
UPDATE (03/02/05): Whoa, I've been out all morning and now I see that this post was linked last night by Glenn Reynolds! Thanks Glenn, and a warm welcome to all.
posted by Eric on 03.01.05 at 07:29 PM
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Respecting the law . . .:
» Items of Interest #18 from Multiple Mentality | www.multiplementality.com
You waited a week for it; now it's here! The biggest IoI that Multiple Mentality has ever hosted! In this issue: Shomer Shabbat, bone rings, sex toys (SFW), missed connections, parking garages, and so much more. Come on in! [Read More] Tracked on March 2, 2005 4:14 PM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood