Not The Onion

12534 readers

1157 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

565

Texas Prevents People From Owning More Than 6 Dildos. Now Lawmakers Want to Ban Sex Toys at Walmart. (www.xatakaon.com)

submitted 6 days ago by irreticent@lemmy.zip to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

140 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://ponder.cat/post/952397

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Wxfisch@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Typically in legalese like this, “he” isn’t denoting only people who use that pronoun, it’s understood to apply to all people.

The law as you posted seems to be equating owning more than six “obscene devices” with an intent to sell them, or use them as part of a business, whether that actually is the intent or not. It also notes that have multiple “devices” that are the same or similar is also an offense (so having two identical or even similar sex toys even if you have fewer than six total would also be a misdemeanor).

But you can claim they are for medical or psychiatric purpose and have as many as you need:

(g) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person who possesses or promotes material or a device proscribed by this section does so for a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Typically in legalese like this, “he” isn’t denoting only people who use that pronoun, it’s understood to apply to all people.

Yeah but it's an interesting defense. There are laws that only apply to women, aren't there? And they dont' use "he". You'd lose, but it'd be an interesting case.

And the definitions section was too long to paste in, but you can get there from the link in the article.