Are people going to stop using Wells Fargo because they very indirectly help in the commerce of sex toys?
I'm genuinely mind blown by this.
What are the ownership restrictions? Is it blanket or just to certain categories or sizes of toys?
> State Representative John Rogers of Birmingham has repeatedly introduced legislation to repeal the ban, but each bill has been defeated.
> Exemptions exist for "bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purposes."
It looks like they're sold as educational devices or something equally absurd, fake pretext and all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute
> In Burleson in 2004, Joanne Webb, a mother of three and a former schoolteacher, faced up to one year in prison for selling a vibrator to two undercover police officers posing as a married couple at a private party.
> In 2007, a lingerie shop in Lubbock was raided, and items "deemed to be illegal by the Texas Penal Code" were confiscated. The clerk on duty at the time was arrested and may have had to register as a sex offender.
What the fuck?
Texas one seems like it was ruled unenforceable in 2008.
Looks like its never been enforced though. Really though laws that are not enforced are a bad thing because some day they could selectively be enforced. Also because they are not enforced and hence not affecting anyone, no one cares to get rid of them.
"The Obscene Device Law is a Texas statute prohibiting the sale of sex toys. The law was introduced in 1973, and was last updated in 2003. While the law was never formally repealed, in 2008 a U.S. District Judge released a report declaring it to be "facially unconstitutional and unenforceable"."
Given the context I thought this was a humorous typo for 'farcically'. but it appears to refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge
If that is the reason for the former, it's probably the reason for the latter too.