http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90478,00.html

I've just quickly scanned the dissent, but not yet read the opinion.  The question is:

Will this decision also overthrow (or in reality setup for a case to do so) laws against prostitution when done in private?

a major step in the right direction. let's hope it sticks.

i bet W and his CR cronies are reeling in the sidelines!  LOL

CNN analysts just brought up the legal relativism to "prostitution" as well, the privacy argument (consenting adults, etc)


[fingers crossed]

This statement from the majority would tend to damper any hope that if might be applied to hobbying:

"This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse con-sent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices com-mon to a homosexual lifestyle."

Oh, well.

(I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TER.)

The link below should get you to the actual decision.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf

(the link below leaves off the df from the .pdf extention.  It must have been to long for the field)

-- Modified on 6/26/2003 9:22:36 AM

-- Modified on 6/26/2003 10:02:38 AM

Reon't get your hopes up

That was not a specific exclusionary statement.  It simply made the point that the case did not include those elements which is different that specifically excluding them.

In fact, Scalia, in his dissent, stated that today's decision does in fact throw laws against prostitution (as well as other consensual private acts between adults) into question.  An amazing statement for a dissent IMHO and one upon which I believe a challenge can certainly be based.

[edited in] I also just noticed a statement in Thomas' dissent that glanced by 'noncommercial' though it's not made a significant issue.

Aside from a pure legal challenge, this decision also provides a platform for civil liberties / privacy leaning legislators to toss out anti-prostitution and other laws based on an argument that these laws are now in question.

-- Modified on 6/26/2003 11:02:24 AM

Reon't get your hopes up

While I would love to think that this does open the door, I just have my doubts that the court would move that far.

We can only hope.

Make no mistake.   This is an exact parallel to prostitution.   Both Scalia and Thomas achnowlege this in their dissent.  Some provider or hobbyist who has be convicted can appeal based on this decision....     I say if one won't be embarassed, go for it...

of the majority.  For a while, old standards and minority view can hold the dam.  In the end, the tide of history prevails.

Folks seem to be going about their routine of researching their next lay here on TER without realizing this is one of those days you will tell your grandchildren about. Today at work, the few gay guys in our company (sales & marketing) were practically dying of joy and almost jumping out of their own skin, this was such a big deal to them. I guess, kind of like Roe v. Wade was to women long ago!

As was mentioned once on this board before, people tend to over-estimate the short term effect, and underestimate the long term effect of things.

Said another way, this case will likely have little measurable effect on the hobby in the next few years, but may very well be the germination for huge changes 5, 10 or 20 years from now.

This ruling does not legalize prostitution.  But it does go a long way toward getting the government out of the bedrooms of citizens.  The idea of sexual freedom is now legally tied to the right to privacy in a way that will make it harder for the religious right to dictate our sexual conduct.

This is a great day for America and for freedom.

I'm optimistic, but not quite as excited about this issue as you are.  My concern is that there are many in government who are holding firmly to the notion that no right to privacy exists.  A number of supreme court justices, and many others (like the senior senator from PA, can't remember his name) still hold that the constitution does not specifically grant a right to privacy, and therefore one does not exist.  In fact, part of the court's dissent yesterday is based on the concern that the ruling starts the "slippery slope" towards establishing a right to privacy that was never intended to exist.

As a pretty libertarian guy, I've been concerned that recent world events have made privacy reduction "in vogue."  The atmosphere is right to encroach on privacy, so it seems like every cabinet-level department is doing the same kind of anti-privacy "land grab" that countries do before signing treaties, or that dot com companies tried to do with subscribers in the 90s.  It seems like the even the forest service can do a body cavity search in your house by simply invoking the phrase "homeland security," and not even the ACLU has been able to stem this tide.  So from that respect, I'm glad to see the court hold the line on privacy against the tide of current government thinking.

But sadly, we are many years from being a country where the phrase "slippery slope" means a luxuriously oily russian session with Sedona, not a debate about what consenting adults can and can't do in private.  ;^)