Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina
AP ^ | 4/23/6 | Seanna Adcox

Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham

Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.

"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."

Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."

"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.

People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: appliances; gardening; talibornagains
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 441-445 next last
To: Larry Lucido
That's good. Very good. Consider it stolen.
301 posted on 04/24/2006 5:47:45 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Is yours a pull-start model?


302 posted on 04/24/2006 5:52:21 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"Note that in the second story, what really got her in trouble was not selling the items, but instead it was describing what they were for and how they were used, thus making it clear what the "devices" were "primarily" for, which is they key phrase in the law."

Which makes perfect sense. You know if you don't tell a woman how to use a dildo or vibrator, then she'll never know what they're for and she'll never be led down the path to immoral orgasms. It's the same principle as sex education for teenagers -- don't tell them about sex and they won't have any.


303 posted on 04/24/2006 5:53:16 AM PDT by Gone GF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
Try assuming the power to outlaw grits and you will receive an education real quick.

Well, out of fairness, grits make a lousy sex aid. Cooked or uncooked.

304 posted on 04/24/2006 5:55:00 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Certainly the people of South Carolina can decide through the legislative process how they want to live.

Nope. They have a right to decide as individuals how they want to live; no more.

305 posted on 04/24/2006 5:59:09 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NonLinear
"Survey says: Yes! You are wrong."

So what do you think will happen with this bill?

306 posted on 04/24/2006 6:01:39 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
"They have a right to decide as individuals how they want to live; no more"

What does that mean? You're describing anarchy -- everyone lives by their own rules.

307 posted on 04/24/2006 6:03:54 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
How about a city? A state?

Just make a contract with somebody rich enough to buy all the land in a city or a state, and you're golden.

308 posted on 04/24/2006 6:04:42 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Salo

Obviously SC lawmakers have way too much time on their hands. I would not want to be an incumbent in November.


309 posted on 04/24/2006 6:05:00 AM PDT by sono ("If Congressional brains were cargo, there'd be nothing to unload." - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
First off, I think incorporation is bogus--I don't buy that the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the Bill of Rights--it's not in the legislative history and it simply wasn't the purpose to the amendment.

Wrong.

On May 23, 1866, Senator Howard of Michigan introduced the proposal in the Senate. In a 1994 Duke Law Journal article, William Van Alstyne and his associates wrote the following concerning Senator Howard's remarks:
So, in reporting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate on behalf of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in 1866, Senator Jacob Meritt Howard of Michigan began by detailing the 'first section' of that amendment, i.e., the section that 'relates the privileges and immunities of citizens.' He explained that the first clause of the amendment (the 'first section'), once approved and ratified, would 'restrain the power of the States' even as Congress was already restrained (by the Bill of Rights) from abridging -- the personal rights quarantined and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms... [etc., through the Eighth Amendment].
Senator Howard referred to the right enumerated in the Second Amendment as a personal right of the people, not a collective right of the States. He concluded his remarks by stating:
[T]here is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress... they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them.... The great object of this first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.

310 posted on 04/24/2006 6:18:11 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
Well, out of fairness, grits make a lousy sex aid. Cooked or uncooked.

Well, you really do have to put them in the 'fridge overnight to get them to set up properly....
311 posted on 04/24/2006 6:25:17 AM PDT by NonLinear (He's dead, Jim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So what do you think will happen with this bill?

I don't know what will happen with it. I know what should happen to it. It should be placed into one of the two potential locations intended for the devices to which it was intended to apply. That is, once the sponsors head is removed from that particular location.
312 posted on 04/24/2006 6:30:08 AM PDT by NonLinear (He's dead, Jim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Are you saying that they must allow this in the name of "freedom" -- the priciple being "Freedom for me and not for thee"?
  "You don't like the Goths?"
  "No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
  "Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
  "But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
  "That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague deCamp (Lest Darkness Fall)

313 posted on 04/24/2006 6:32:21 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: sushiman

Hey! Vibrators are the DEVIL's playgrounds, French Ticklers Satan's gateway to hell!!!!!! /sarc


314 posted on 04/24/2006 6:34:47 AM PDT by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I guess some guys down here just can't take the competition...


315 posted on 04/24/2006 6:35:27 AM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRightGuy

You've discovered the the secret - this is really a plot by the Big Cucumbers cartel.


316 posted on 04/24/2006 6:36:32 AM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
paulsen erroneously claims:

The state has tremendous powers -- every power not specifically given to the federal government is retained by the states.

Not true. The 10th specifically says that powers are prohibited to the States by the Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Obviously, individual rights apply to "the people".
The powers prohibited to the states, -- the power to prohibit the individual rights of the people -- is denied to government, -- this power is retained by the people.

Which was exactly how the Founding Fathers wanted it.

The founders wrote the Constitution under the presumption that individual liberties "shall not be infringed". -- By any level of government.

Face it paulsen, -- your visions that the "-- state has tremendous powers --" are limited by the provisions of the US Constitution and its Amendments.
Why do you fight this simple fact?

317 posted on 04/24/2006 6:41:43 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I have found, through much wasted time reading his inane ramblings, that Paulsen invariably takes a side contrary to the facts and does it in such an annoying fashion that he is not worth the trouble. He is consistently opposed to the system of governance set up by our Founders.


318 posted on 04/24/2006 6:52:34 AM PDT by rebelyell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: steve-b; robertpaulsen; Everybody
Great quote.

Not that he will bother to read it, -- but you forgot to ping paulsen, FR's foremost advocate of a States 'right' to prohibit any type of property .
319 posted on 04/24/2006 6:54:38 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Nova
It's your understanding that, basically, any town-council, of any state, could enact and enforce such a ban without any serious legal obstructions?

As long as the Constitution is not being violated, either in its due process for passing the legislation, or its adherence to individual rights expressly protected in the Constitution, then local government bodies can and do place such restrictions on business all the time. There are plenty of dry counties, Blue Laws, and all sorts of laws governing business behavior that localities have passed, and have never been overturned as unconstitutional as far as I know.

Do I personally agree with and support such laws? No. I would not want to live in such a place, and would either work to change the laws or move to a place that didn't have such restrictions. But my personal distaste for such regulations does not prohibit a group of people, who wish to freely associate and voluntarily live by certain restrictions and codes, from passing them.

If a county was heavily Amish, for example, and as a matter of conscience the leaders and representatives (with the support of the people) wanted certain legal restrictions passed -- as long as the Constitution is the base document they abide by in the process of drafting the laws, and protection of individual rights under the Constitution is not violated, then they should be free to create a legal and moral environment to their liking, should they not?

I realize there are many gray areas where individual rights collide with legal restrictions, and this is where many court battles related to Constitutionality are fought -- so it's not a cut and dry situation, just a general principle that has been established through the years.

320 posted on 04/24/2006 7:08:22 AM PDT by Ryan Spock (Former Internet Addict -- Making good progress with help from an online support group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 441-445 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson