Sandy Springs, Ga. – A town ordinance that defines vibrators as obscene and makes them harder to buy is being challenged by a woman who says government should keep its nose out of her bedroom.
Georgia resident Melissa Davenport, along with her attorney Gerry Weber, are suing Sandy Springs over the law, which requires people to have a scientific or medical reason or a prescription to purchase any sexual device, according to WSB-TV.
Vibrators can be seen at many mainstream stores next to condoms on the shelf, USA Today reported. CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, Safeway, Target and Walmart are among major national chains that now include vibrators on store shelves. Although the devices have been around a long time, their availability on the mass market is relatively new.
The Sandy Springs ordinance prohibits the selling of sexual devices unless the customers have a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purpose, says WSB-TV. Legal experts construe that to mean a doctor’s prescription is needed, or some kind of proof the device is being used for one of those purposes.
"The ordinance basically says the government can stick its nose in your bedroom and say you can use this but not that,” Weber told the TV station.Davenport, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, told the news station the disorder interferes with the nerve pathways traveling to her reproductive organs, thus limiting her ability to have a healthy intimate life with her partner.
The Sandy Springs law labels devices that are used to primarily stimulate one's sexual organs as obscene and the "selling, renting, or leasing the material" of devices can only be done for "bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purpose."
Weber argues the ordinance violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which guarantees a citizen's right to privacy, the story said. Davenport added she isn't seeking money, but wants the law to be ruled unconstitutional.
What do you think? Does the law go to far and intrude upon a person's right to privacy?