Just Above Sunset
August 1, 2004 - Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere













Home | Question Time | Something Is Up | Connecting Dots | Stay Away | Overload | Our Man in Paris | WLJ Weekly | Book Wrangler | Cobras | The Edge of the Pacific | The Surreal Beach | On Location | Botanicals | Quotes





Note this - the official Alabama State Motto -

 

"Audemus jura nostra defendere" has been translated as: "We Dare Maintain Our Rights" or "We Dare Defend Our Rights."  This Latin phrase is on the state coat of arms completed in 1923.

According to a Birmingham News-Age Herald article by Marie Bankhead Owen (the director of the state Archives) dated April 23, 1939, she came upon the idea while searching for "a phrase that would interpret the spirit of our peoples in a terse and energetic sentence."  A part of a poem entitled "What Constitutes a State?" by the 18th-century author Sir William Jones found in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations includes the stanza "Men who their duties know. But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain."  The motto was translated into Latin by Professor W. B. Saffold, of the University of Alabama.

 

And thereby hangs a tale…



CHAPTER ONE: The Manufacturer Cheers

Good Vibrations Celebrates Lift of Alabama Sex Toy Ban
Names Sex Toy "The Alabama Slammer"

 

San Francisco, CA -- October 3, 2002 -- An Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys was struck down this month by a federal judge as a violation of the right to privacy. "The fundamental right of privacy, long recognized by the Supreme Court as inherent among our constitutional protections, incorporates a right to sexual privacy," said U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr.

To celebrate this triumphant occasion, legendary San Francisco-based sex toy store Good Vibrations has re-named a popular bright red personal massager "The Alabama Slammer." Sex toy-starved Alabama residents can reclaim their right to own vibrators, dildos and other adult products by purchasing the vibrant red Alabama Slammer -- or any other Good Vibrations merchandise -- at a 15% discount during the month of November.

For the last four years Good Vibrations has supported the American Civil Liberties Union case against the Alabama sex toy ban. The 1998 law -- part of a package of legislation strengthening the state's obscenity law -- banned the sale of devices designed for "the stimulation of human genital organs."

In 2000, as part of an effort to raise awareness around the Alabama legislation, Good Vibrations collected an emergency supply of sex toys and collected nearly $10,000 worth of product from generous vendors to distribute to the unfortunate, toy-less masses in Alabama.

Good Vibrations, the "clean well-lighted place to buy sex toys," supports every person's right to sexual pleasure. Throughout the ban Good Vibrations argued that sex toys are not obscene and sexual gratification is indeed a basic human right.

As Good Vibrations Sexologist and author Dr. Carol Queen says, "Alabama may have maintained that 'there is no fundamental right to purchase a product to use in pursuit of having an orgasm,' but we strongly disagree, and have for the last four years. What exactly do they think the constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness means?"

 

I’m not sure the Founding Fathers had these products in mind.  But the idea is clear – the government has no business legislating here.  This is all a personal matter.

The counterargument might be that the state has a compelling interest in banning certain activities, no matter how private, as such activities create a permissive and perverse mindset or attitude that can do real, substantial and irreparable harm to the general good.  Proving that certain harm might be difficult.  Asserting that harm is not difficult.  I suspect the idea is that sexual activity that is not directed toward procreation is a real problem.  It leads to the breakdown of the family – the basic social unit.  And that hurts everyone.  Thus we should stop such private activity.



CHAPTER TWO: The Legislature Acts and Refuses to Remove the Ban

Link Expired - April 29, 2003 – Associated Press

 

The Alabama House voted against a bill Tuesday that would have removed a ban on sexual devices, such as vibrators, from the state's obscenity law. ....

A federal district judge in Birmingham has twice ruled that the ban is unconstitutional. The first ruling was overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the second ruling has been appealed to the appeals court.

... The sponsor of the bill, Rep. John Rogers, D-Birmingham, said because of the court ruling, the obscenity law is unenforceable as long as it contains the ban on sex toys....

With little serious discussion, the House voted 37-28 to leave the sex toys ban in state law, leaving Rogers standing at the microphone shaking his head. “What you just did is make our obscenity law illegal. You voted for obscenity,'' Rogers shouted at lawmakers.

 

Huh?

But I see what Rogers means. Leave this ban on these gizmos in the law and then the whole anti-obscenity law remains unconstitutional.

Well, they left the ban on these gizmos in the law – they thought it was important to the welfare of the state’s citizens.

To hell with the courts!



CHAPTER THREE: The Stunning Reversal as a Federal Appeals Court Rules - The Constitution Does NOT Include a Right to Sexual Privacy

11th Circuit upholds Alabama sex toy ban
Jay Reeves - The Associated Press 7/28/2004, 5:22 p.m. CT

 

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) -- A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a 1998 state law banning the sale of sex toys in Alabama, ruling the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state has a right to police the sale of devices including electronic vibrators and other products meant to stimulate the sex organs.

"If the people of Alabama in time decide that a prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter," the court said. "On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like."

Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett disagreed, writing that the decision was based on the "erroneous foundation" that adults don't have a right to consensual sexual intimacy and that private acts can be made a crime in the name of promoting "public morality."

"This case is not, as the majority's demeaning and dismissive analysis suggests, about sex or about sexual devices. It is about the tradition of American citizens from the inception of our democracy to value the constitutionally protected right to be left alone in the privacy of their bedrooms and personal relationships," Barkett wrote in her dissent.

 

Yeah, but she’s a woman and thus may own, or even use one of these gizmos.

Note the court is saying that asserting this hypothetical Constitutional right to sexual privacy – by ruling that there may be such a right – they would be opening the doors to all sorts of evils like incest, prostitution, and, who knows, possibly sex with box turtles.  It’s that slippery slope, or that slippery gizmo in this case.



CHAPTER FOUR: TBD

Above the federal appeals courts sit the nine justices of the US Supreme Court.  Will the ACLU and the Good Vibrations folks find a way to move this up to the ultimate panel?

Can you imagine the oral arguments?  (Don’t even THINK it!)  What a hoot!  Scalia and Clarence Thomas (oh my!) discussing the "The Alabama Slammer" while Sandra Day O’Conner rolls her eyes?  Maybe Anita Hill could argue the case for the ACLU and the Good Vibrations Corporation.

This could be great fun.

The moral Christian right conservatives in Alabama would have then made things difficult for the ruling Republican leaders of our country.  Their mantra is keep government out of our lives. But does that mean an adventurous woman, alone at home, cannot make use of "The Alabama Slammer" because the government says so?  Which is it – less government intrusion, or government mandated private behavior?  Make up your mind.

What a pickle!

I can’t believe I said that.































 
 
 
 

Copyright 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
 
_______________________________________________
The inclusion of any text from others is quotation
for the purpose of illustration and commentary,
as permitted by the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. 
See the Details page for the relevant citation.

This issue updated and published on...

Paris readers add nine hours....























Visitors:

________