Religion & Law

Here is a summary of a recent New York lower court decision, People v. Andujar, involving a prosecution for the unlicensed vending of condoms with "political" messages and caricatures:

Charged with unlicensed general vending in violation of AC §20-453, defendant moved for dismissal of the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency. The instrument alleged that, in front of 1585 Broadway, defendant displayed and offered for sale 20 condoms without being able to produce a license from the Department of Consumer Affairs. While the condoms were not described any further in the instrument, defendant contended they bore political messages on their packaging and contained caricatures of Barack Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin, along with "satirical slogans and commentary regarding political awareness, sexual responsibility, and abortion." The court granted defendant's motion, finding that the condoms fell within the "written matter" exception as construed by the consumer affairs agency. The court cited the exception contained in AC §20-453, which ensures that the statute is not unconstitutionally applied to First Amendment-protected forms of expression protected. It added that a reasonable consumer of the condoms is unlikely to buy them for use during intercourse, but would instead buy them because of the political message contained on the wrapper.

I wonder how the court felt so sure about the purposes for which "reasonable" people would buy condoms with caricatures of President Obama and Sarah Palin?  (For those who may be wondering, "the instrument" refers, I believe, to the complaint).

Ahhh, the freedom of speech.