Are these people idiots?

Mon

Mar 6 2006

04:31:pm

By: WhitesCreek shortURL

Now it's gonna be against the law for you to show me yours:

"...Senate Bill 3794 (House Bill 3798), legislation that would make it illegal to sell, advertise, publish or exhibit to another person “any three-dimensional device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs….”

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2006/03/lawmakers-r-seek-to-outlaw-dildos.html

The General thinks this is a fine idea!

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_03_05_patriotboy_archive.html#114163114586813500

Actually, you and I are the morons for letting these jerks be elected. Tennessee is 49th in education and these ________'s are worried about you showing me your three dimensional devices?

WhitesCreek's blog

vote

“any three-dimensional

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2006/03/06 - 6:17pm.

“any three-dimensional device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs….”

...wouldn't that outlaw most legislative perks?

Not to mention sports cars, hummers, motorcycles and guns (just kidding uncle)

I'm thinking this will

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Mon, 2006/03/06 - 8:26pm.

I'm thinking this will outlaw Cheerleaders and muscle cars, and maybe even laptop computers. Life as we know it.....OVER!

And actually...What do you mean about outlawing "Hummers"? Now I'm getting really bummed!

I guess Jambi will have to

Submitted by metulj on Mon, 2006/03/06 - 9:54pm.

I guess Jambi will have to return those hands he got.

FWIW...

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Tue, 2006/03/07 - 7:48am.

What this is really about is adult bookstores, which by some accounts make up to half of their revenue on sex toys. While the courts have held repeatedly that it is almost impossible to regulate or ban the "reading material" such stores sell, courts have also ruled that the selling of sex toys does not involve "speech", and can thus be regulated, so I suspect this bill is designed to put a financial hurt on the businesses that sell them.

Since the bill as it now

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Tue, 2006/03/07 - 9:13am.

Since the bill as it now stands, or wallows, bans showing anybody one of these three dimensional devices, I believe it would infringe upon First Amendment privileges, but that is entirely beside the point.

Our legislators are either jerks or morons for even considering such a bill. Or, now that I think abut it, some combination of the two...

And they obviously did not stay awake during science or math. otherwise they would realize that a device having only three dimensions doesn't exist. maybe that explains why our educational motto goes something like,

"At least we're not Mississippi."

Too bad we have to compete with the whole world, eh? It was so much easier before the Interstate system and global transport systems.

how many?

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Tue, 2006/03/07 - 9:38am.

And they obviously did not stay awake during science or math. otherwise they would realize that a device having only three dimensions doesn't exist.

I guess I must have fallen asleep during that class as well. How many dimensions does an object have?

In any event, I suppose the reason for that "three dimensional" description is to distinguish the object of the legislation from what are more commonly thought of as "two-dimensional" objects; i.e., pictures and the like.

You are probably right however; insofar as the bill criminalizes display or exhibition of these items it will probably fail constitutional muster. So far as I know, only a prohibition on the selling of such devices has been upheld as not violative of the First Amendment.

Perhaps if the bill were attacked on privacy grounds, ala Griswold V. Connecticut, rather than on First Amendment grounds, it might fail even on the issue of sale prohibition. I can't remember if that argument has ever been advanced or decided.

Post new comment