Dildoless South Carolina?

[Legs]

Anyone here from SC care to share their thoughts on this?

A state lawmaker wants to ban the sale of sex toys.

Republican Representative Ralph Davenport of Boiling Springs proposed the bill that would add sex toys to the state's obscenity laws. Davenport's bill would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation.

The proposal also would allow law enforcement to seize sex toys as contraband.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4802296

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Legs

Anyone here from SC care to share their thoughts on this?

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4802296

Holy guacamole!

What? Are they going to cut off every hand in the state of South Carolina? And rip out every tongue?

"Hey, stranger...I see from your lack of hands that you hail from the palmetto state. What brings you to these parts? Vibrators?"

"Huhmmm mmmuum...Mhmmm ahhhghhhaaa."

[Crumb]

Why are people so stupid?

[Legs]

So selling would be against the law in the State, but owning them would be okay? I suppose (if that is correct) they could be mail ordered.

[ms_ann_thrope]

He looks like a major dork (at least according to the SC Legislature website .

According to the bill, possession is OK. Possession with intent to disseminate would not be OK. link to text of bill

[Legs]

OMG! that act is a riot... you all must read it. Thanks ms_ann

I especially liked this part.

(e) an act or condition that depicts the insertion of any part of a person's body, other than the male sexual organ, or of any an object into another person's anus or vagina, except when done as part of a recognized medical procedure.

[Stephen Maturin]

The Eleventh Circuit upheld a similar Alabama law a couple of years back, holding that the Constitution doesn't include a right of sexual privacy. All things considered, it's a wonder S.C. legislators waited this long to propose such a bill.

As James Petigru said back in 1860, "South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum." God bless the Confederasah.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Legs

OMG! that act is a riot... you all must read it. Thanks ms_ann

I especially liked this part.

(e) an act or condition that depicts the insertion of any part of a person's body, other than the male sexual organ, or of any an object into another person's anus or vagina, except when done as part of a recognized medical procedure.

Like I said, folks, watch those fingers.

Also, note that although it states the exception as being "when done as part of a recognized medical procedure", it says nothing about who can do it. Does this mean we'll see the marketing of "home doctor kits" in SC?

[Legs]

Sphincter Bleaching... is it for you?

[Stephen Maturin]

From the bill:

A person disseminates a sexual device within the meaning of this article if it is designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs and solely for the sale of prurient interest in sex.

What a gibbering, drooling, bed-wetting train wreck of a sentence. Either someone's trying to throw criminal defense lawyers a bone or someone's just plain stupid.

Possession isn't criminal in and of itself, but sexual devices procured in violation of the bill would be subject to seizure as "contraband." It's a "Buy a twenty-inch double donger in South Carolina, lose your investment" kinda thing.

[godfry n. glad]

But what if you crossed the state line and bought it in, say, Georgia, or North Carolina? Can they still confiscate it?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The Eleventh Circuit upheld a similar Alabama law a couple of years back, holding that the Constitution doesn't include a right of sexual privacy. All things considered, it's a wonder S.C. legislators waited this long to propose such a bill.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; just as long as it doesn't offend someone else's sensibilities.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

From the bill:

A person disseminates a sexual device within the meaning of this article if it is designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs and solely for the sale of prurient interest in sex.

What a gibbering, drooling, bed-wetting train wreck of a sentence. Either someone's trying to throw criminal defense lawyers a bone or someone's just plain stupid.

Wasn't that a gem? That appears to be pretty much Davenport's entire contribution to the statute; the existing portions of the obscenity code are more coherent. "...solely for the sale of prurient interest in sex" doesn't even make sense; it's like some key words were dropped or something.

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

But what if you crossed the state line and bought it in, say, Georgia, or North Carolina? Can they still confiscate it?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

"...solely for the sale of prurient interest in sex" doesn't even make sense; it's like some key words were dropped or something.

I thought that too, until just now when I realized that 'sale' is probably supposed to be 'sake'.

[Legs]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

But what if you crossed the state line and bought it in, say, Georgia, or North Carolina? Can they still confiscate it?

They might wanna use gloves for that.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Legs

Anyone here from SC care to share their thoughts on this?

This shouldn't suprise anyone.

South Carolina is where the raving fundibots want to declare a separate Christian nation and secede, you know.

[godfry n. glad]

So they're saying that they want you to rely upon out-of-state dildos, or the ones in the state legislature, right?

(This sounds like it has all the attractions of a state-line business in NC and GA. "This here Geogia dawg done got a bone for you So' Carolina customers! C'mon over to Dick's Always Hardware...jes' acrost the state line.")

[Tanda]

Silly lawmakers. "Ralph Davenport of Boiling Springs" is repressed. One good romp with the right gal would change his mind.

[Legs]

I bet Ralph has a closet full of toys.

[Tanda]

It's usually those who are barking the loundest that have the most to hide.

A little bit of should do the trick.

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by Legs

So selling would be against the law in the State, but owning them would be okay? I suppose (if that is correct) they could be mail ordered.

If they are getting impounded as contraband, I would guess no. The law this asshole is proposing is fucking stupid.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Tanda

It's usually those who are barking the loundest that have the most to hide.

A little bit of should do the trick.

That is an amazing coincidence! Look at this, from here:

Representative Ralph Davenport (R, Boiling Springs) today announced plans to criminalise the use of "deviant" icons on Internet forums.

"Everyone thinks emoticons, or smilies as they're innocently called, are harmless," Davenport explained. "But some of them explicitly portray sexual acts including sadism and bestiality."

The draft bill, following hard on the heels of his bid to control the sale of sex toys, would make the hosting of "indecent" emoticons by forum administrators, and the inclusion of such emoticons in bulletin board messages, email messages or instant messages by any user, felonies.

Courts would have wide discretion to determine what makes an emoticon indecent.

"We have to stop this disease before it becomes accepted," said Davenport. "It no coincidence that the boards with the greatest number of corrupting icons are anit-Christian, anti-government and even proud of the labels 'deviant'."

[livius drusus]

Time to hit the barricades, y'all.

[ChuckF]

Republican Representative Ralph Davenport of Boiling Springs proposed the bill that would add sex toys to the state's obscenity laws. Davenport's bill would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation.

Don't worry, guys. We know there will always be at least one dildo in South Carolina.

[viscousmemories]

<nevermind, I'm dumb>