3 ms·

I don't support the law, but when was the law passed? How many people have been prosecuted under it in recent years?

eesmith 4y ago
1973. One acquitted "for selling a vibrator to two undercover police officers posing as a married couple at a private party" in 2004, one lingerie shop clerk arrested "and may have had to register as a sex offender" in 2007. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute No more recent than that because, as the article points out: > Judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional in a ruling from 2008, considering that the Texas statute cannot define sexual devices themselves as obscene and prohibit their sale. However, with a GOP majority in the House and in the Senate, the law remains in the books.
- olliej 4y ago
  The unconstitutionality of this law, references Lawrence v. Texas, which is itself based on the right to privacy provide by the presumably defunct Roe vs. Wade. Given TX has historically wanted to control what people do in the home, as well as fighting women's control of their body, I don't see TX having a problem in which the judicial landscape gives them back legislative control of women's bodies, and people's private and intimate relationships.
  - sterlind 4y ago
    if Roe is overturned, then will Lawrence be overturned as well? would that cause the Texas sodomy law to reactivate?
    - olliej 4y ago
      As I understand it TX, would be able to - and have to - appeal, and they shown no change in governmental homophobia, so I see no reason to expect different
- masonic 4y ago
  >"and may have had to register as a sex offender" The registry is public, as is the defendant in the case. It could be easily looked up if the statement was credible in the first place.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    The question was "have been prosecuted" not "convicted." The citation [4] at https://archive.ph/20070525044229/http://www.klbk13.tv/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=2259 https://archive.ph/20070525044229/http://www.klbk13.tv/news/... says "if convicted, the clerk will have to register as a sex offender." Though I guess the D.A. could have decided to not prosecute, leaving only the arrest... Why do you doubt the citation?
    - masonic 4y ago
      >The question was "have been prosecuted" not "convicted." Nobody registers as a sex offender without a conviction. Why is that not obvious to you? >Why do you doubt the citation? The cited article doesn't even say that charges were ever filed, so there's nothing to "doubt". Beyond that, a local TV news "reporter" is not likely to understand law any more than you do.

1973. One acquitted "for selling a vibrator to two undercover police officers posing as a married couple at a private party" in 2004, one lingerie shop clerk arrested "and may have had to register as a sex offender" in 2007. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute No more recent than that because, as the article points out: > Judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional in a ruling from 2008, considering that the Texas statute cannot define sexual devices themselves as obscene and prohibit their sale. However, with a GOP majority in the House and in the Senate, the law remains in the books.

olliej 4y ago
The unconstitutionality of this law, references Lawrence v. Texas, which is itself based on the right to privacy provide by the presumably defunct Roe vs. Wade. Given TX has historically wanted to control what people do in the home, as well as fighting women's control of their body, I don't see TX having a problem in which the judicial landscape gives them back legislative control of women's bodies, and people's private and intimate relationships.
- sterlind 4y ago
  if Roe is overturned, then will Lawrence be overturned as well? would that cause the Texas sodomy law to reactivate?
  - olliej 4y ago
    As I understand it TX, would be able to - and have to - appeal, and they shown no change in governmental homophobia, so I see no reason to expect different
masonic 4y ago
>"and may have had to register as a sex offender" The registry is public, as is the defendant in the case. It could be easily looked up if the statement was credible in the first place.
- eesmith 4y ago
  The question was "have been prosecuted" not "convicted." The citation [4] at https://archive.ph/20070525044229/http://www.klbk13.tv/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=2259 https://archive.ph/20070525044229/http://www.klbk13.tv/news/... says "if convicted, the clerk will have to register as a sex offender." Though I guess the D.A. could have decided to not prosecute, leaving only the arrest... Why do you doubt the citation?
  - masonic 4y ago
    >The question was "have been prosecuted" not "convicted." Nobody registers as a sex offender without a conviction. Why is that not obvious to you? >Why do you doubt the citation? The cited article doesn't even say that charges were ever filed, so there's nothing to "doubt". Beyond that, a local TV news "reporter" is not likely to understand law any more than you do.