The test is whether “those who are affected by the statute can reasonably understand what it requires.”
But for the appearance, the item would be legal. But for those who would like it, it would be legal.
A law that criminalizes a lifeless object based on its appearance or who might ‘like’ it is a content-based restriction on symbolic expression. Such a law violates the Barnette principle by allowing officials to prescribe a moral and aesthetic orthodoxy over inanimate forms. Furthermore, by basing legality on a user’s internal inclination, the statute directly collides with Robinson v. California, which prohibits the state from criminalizing a person’s status or psychological condition in the absence of a harmful act.
West Virginia v Barnette (1943)
Robinson v California (1962)
The law defines these objects solely by the psychology of those who seek them. Robinson v. California prohibits punishing a ‘status’—yet this statute criminalizes a preference. To find harm here requires a leap over Occam’s razor that ignores the lack of a victim.
The doll law is premised on a non-sequitur. The premise associates attraction with selfishness. The two attributes are entirely different constructs.
Buying a doll is no more of a selfish act than buying an apple. One can want an apple without being selfish enough to steal one. It’s no more normal to ascribe human rights to a doll than it is to ascribe human rights to a rock.
How can the general attorney call his arguments “absurd” when the highest court of appeals for the military forces agreed and struck down a possession charge…? It sucks that it has to be a guy who actually harmed kids, but an unconstitutional law is still that. I wonder why the attorney does not think it is absurd to ban child-like dolls for torture purposes.
The doll law is the only facet I address. I don’t like the idea that it’s being dragged along with other activities. Regardless, A bad actor can like cookies just like anyone else. I dislike how activists use disingenuous framing to attack a hobby.
I think the arguments against dolls made by the prosecution will not succeed provided the judge is smart enough and the defense consist of shark lawyers. The normalization arguments were debunked in Ashcroft v FSC, and the argument that it’s not speech is… specious.
If they’re right and the images in question are just adult bodies with the faces of real children spliced on, then that’s already a moot point. Many courts have already ruled that photoshopping the faces of real children counts as CSAM, since it’s still a depiction of an actual minor and the minor’s likeness is an extension of their ‘person’, which applies in this context.
The doll, on the other hand, lacks any viable counterargument. There are no studies, no cases, no evidence present to actually link the dolls to any kind of heightened risk of abuse. I’m sure the police will come forward with their own subjective accounts and anecdotes (likely involving CSAM offenders also owning a doll).
But that matters very little. Empirical findings go beyond the confines of samples found in the justice system, and it wouldn’t take much argumentative effort to make that point.
Like implying anyone having keys must own a vehicle. The steak knife to a desire to murder argument. The playing violent video games to a desire to commit violence. A person has magazines and they’re an adult, there must be pornos somewhere.
Dolls don’t necessarily equal possession of sam, same as most people in possession don’t have dolls. Just because you have dolls doesn’t mean you masturbate with them either. Does everyone piss in their bathtub when taking a shower? You likely don’t shit in it.
To the extent that the law mandates for one to treat or view a doll as though it were human, it is compulsory orthodoxy. It is mandated pretend. West Virginia v Barnette prohibits compulsory orthodoxy.
Since this is clearly in First Amendment territory, Hess v Indiana has relevance. It’s impossible to be alone with a doll and be out pillaging the neighborhood.
The doll laws are content based regulations.
Content based restrictions are actions that violate the constitutional prohibition against prescribing orthodoxy.
I. Thou shalt not fashion, nor cause to be fashioned, any image of a child in the form of a doll that is anatomically complete for the sake of lust; for such an object is an abomination in the eyes of the State.
II. Thou shalt not offer for sale, nor distribute, nor show unto others these forbidden likenesses; for he who promotes such things shall be cast into the shadows of a second-degree felony.
III. Thou shalt not keep these idols within thy dwelling with the intent to spread them among the people. If thou art found with two or more in thy keeping, the Law shall deem thy heart set upon promotion, and thou shalt face the judgment of a third-degree felony.
IV. Thou shalt not possess even a single such likeness for thy own secret use; for even simple possession is a transgression, marked as a state jail felony under the sun of Texas.
V. Nevertheless, let it be known that the guardians of the peace—the officers of the law—may handle these objects if it be for the sake of a holy investigation; against them, the Law shall hold no claim.
Thus it is written, to take hold of the land on the first day of September in the year of our Lord 2025.
The government is prohibited from using a media effects supposition as the sole reason to ban something that is not legally obscene. The use of media effects, alone, targets the communicative impact and thus violates the First Amendment.
Media effects and communication impact are tethered; one cannot occur without the other.
Sadly the media is treated as Gospel.
Yet we all know by now, it’s all BS and run by the CIA since it’s inception. Always there to supplant ideas into the populace.
What even is the goal here like for real. Who is stopping someone from using a barbie or reborn doll as a sex toy? Do they think sex consists of penetration only?
You would need to ban any and all depictions of childlike things. How can outlawing a human trait itself be thought up…
Kentucky’s doll law claims it’s not about speech, then bans the dolls for how they ‘normalize’ (in effigy) and ‘reinforce’ (in effigy) harmful interests. It’s a literal ban on expression in effigy.
The media-effects terms name expressions and leap over Occam’s razor.
If an object can ‘normalize’ (in effigy) a behavior, it is a medium of expression. Kentucky’s Doll Law regulates the effigy to control the idea.