A friend found this news, so don’t blame me. I’m quoting.
Child sex doll conviction reversed: Airman’s indecent conduct conviction reversed following 5 years of litigation:double_exclamation_mark:
> The military’s highest court has upheld the dismissal of a case involving an airman who said he performed sexual acts with a childlike silicone doll in the privacy of his dorm room.
>
> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on Monday affirmed the judgment of the Air Force criminal appeals court, which ruled that Airman Zachary Rocha’s conduct was constitutionally protected.
>
> In the court’s majority opinion, justices wrote they lacked the authority to make their own findings of fact and reviewed an appeals’ court decision for the application of “correct legal principles.”
>
> The high court wrote that it was not sure another review by the Air Force appeals court was justified, stating justices answered the most important question when they “stated Rocha had a constitutionally protected liberty interest to privately engage in sexual activities with his doll,” according to court papers.
For what it’s worth, the news was recently posted on X Twitter. https://x.com/i/status/2034690364238614683
Here’s a quote from the article.
Even “considering potential discredit to the service, we have found that (Rocha’s) conduct—masturbation, in solitude, in secret, and in private—should warrant” the constitutional protection afforded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas. That landmark decision struck down a Texas law criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults.
Read more at: Airman’s indecent conduct conviction reversed following 5 years of litigation | Stars and Stripes
Source - Stars and Stripes
I wish someone would expressly point out that there is no moral requirement for anyone to treat any doll with more respect than any intimate toy and that one’s moral agency cannot be evaluated from how one handles a doll when it’s no more normal to ascribe human rights to a doll than it is to ascribe human rights to a broom. The only thing left to punish is attraction, which is a status. Punishing a status is prohibited by Robinson v California (1962).