Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (220407)	2/22/2005 10:58:36 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1573018

This is so screwed up and makes me so angry and ashamed to be an American today... Court Rejects Appeal on Sex Toy Sales Ban Tue Feb 22,10:33 AM ET Oddly Enough - Reuters By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rejected on Tuesday a constitutional challenge to an Alabama law that makes it a crime to sell sex toys. The high court refused to hear an appeal by a group of individuals who regularly use sexual devices and by two vendors who argued the case raised important issues about the scope of the constitutional right to sexual privacy. The law prohibited the distribution of "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." First-time violators can face a fine of up to $10,000 and as much as one year in jail. The law, adopted in 1998, allowed the sale of ordinary vibrators and body massagers that are not designed or marketed primarily as sexual aids. It exempted sales of sexual devices "for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purpose." Georgia and Texas are the only other states that restrict the distribution of sexual devices, according to the court record in the case. Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), representing those who challenged the law, argued that private, consensual sexual conduct among adults is constitutionally protected and beyond the reach of government regulation. They said the Supreme Court's decision in 2003 striking down a Texas sodomy law also created a fundamental, constitutional due process right to sexual privacy. "The evidence shows that this case is not about novelty items, naughty toys or obscene matter. It is a case about human sexuality and extremely intimate acts," the attorneys said. They said Alabama has never explained "why sales of performance enhancing drugs like Viagra, Cialis and Levitra and even ribbed condoms are not similarly prohibited." The attorneys said the state did not contest the evidence that about 20 percent of all American women use a vibrator and at least 10 percent of sexually active adults use vibrators in their regular sex life. A federal judge ruled against the state and found a constitutional "right to use sexual devices like ... vibrators, dildos, anal beads and artificial vaginas." But a U.S. appeals court based in Atlanta upheld the law by a 2-1 vote. The appeals court said it agreed with Alabama that the law exercised time-honored use of state police power to restrict the sale of sex. It rejected the ACLU's argument that the constitutional right to privacy covered the commercial sale of sex toys. Alabama Attorney General Troy King opposed the ACLU's appeal. "This case involves conduct that is both public and commercial -- the sale of sexual devices to the general public in commercial retail shopping centers" and at in-house Tupperware-style parties, he said. King said the law respected "the distinction between public commercial conduct and purely private behavior." He said, "It ... stays out of people's bedrooms." The justices rejected the appeal without any comment or recorded dissent.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (220407)	2/23/2005 2:29:18 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573018

Pope Calls Gay Marriage Part of 'Ideology of Evil' Do you know the history of Catholicism and why there is a "Pope"? He isn't mentioned as a necessary requisite in the bible is he? Just curious. It seems to be one of the main big picture things that separates Islam and Catholicism (Islam doesn't seem to have one dude who has the final say on what is and is not "Islamic").

To: RetiredNow who wrote (220407)	2/23/2005 6:33:47 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573018

Read this article about an Iranian blogger jailed for 14 years: news.bbc.co.uk This is a darn good reason for us not to have to invade Iran to spread Democracy. People within Iran are fet up with their gov't theocracy. So Democracy will come there in time. However, the issue of WMD puts the attack Iran scenario back on the table. The real question is whether Democracy will arrive in Iran prior to them attaining the nuclear bomb? And also, will seeking nukes persist even after Democracy takes root?