Everyone living in the EU is sadly cooked. Two days ago the final draft of the Combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child sexual abuse material. Recast(CSAM 2024/0035 (COD)) was adopted:
The Civil Liberties Committee adopted the draft position by 57votes in favour, 0 against, and with 0 abstentions
Summary
*(Pedophiles deserve no liberties)*
It explicitly bans AI-generated content if it is realistic, but they leave a huge backdoor in to cover much more if necessary and one such example is:
In addition, the development of augmented, extended and virtual reality settings making use of avatars including sensory feedback, e.g. through devices providing a perception of touch are not fully covered by the existing definition. The inclusion of an explicit reference to representations generated “by whatever means” and the reference to ‘reproductions and representations’ “regardless of the method of their creation or manipulation” should ensure that the definition of child sexual abuse material covers these and future technological developments in a sufficiently technology-neutral and hence future-proof way.
This is meant to cover dolls (a CLSD is basically CSAM under this directive since it “physically” represents CSA - as stated by the quote above), because the EU already discussed multiple options of combating CSA/CSAM and the parliament demanded:
This will also make it near impossible for national courts to rule parts of this directive as unconstitutional since they will (almost always) forward any challenges to the European Court of Human Rights. They would then check if the EU equivalent of the constitution (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) is violated.
I am not aware of any ongoing legal challenges against a doll ban except for Germany, so if they do rule it unconstitutional it would be impossible for them to ratify this part of the directive.
Luckily they did not listen to ECPAT who proposed:
This new definition shall cover all forms of CSAE happening online and offline, including virtual CSAM in the form of cartoons, mangas, drawings and fantasy descriptions.
But yeah guess a lot of pedophiles have to start “killing” their doll companion. We all know this shit is gonna pass anyways, so yeah. I have always said that if pedophiles did not take the risk of outing themselves it will only get worse. You cannot rely on the general public and scientists to defend you. Any research into fiction is now also made impossible since they ban anything deemed realistic and also encouragement for such content under “instruction manual” in the Article 3 of the directive.
was literally just about to post about this. thank you.
I’m hopeful that this provision will not pass. CLSDs are not CSAM anymore than a drawing of a fictional character. Otherwise the EU will begin to see a great deal of voracious noncompliance.
I honestly do not really understand it myself when I am being honest. How is a doll, which is clearly recognizable as a product of fiction to anyone, worse than a drawing? What will be interesting is what size of Dildo will be acceptable in each state (Article 3c mentions “any realistic […] reproductions of intimate parts for sexual purposes”.
It honestly makes me sad what is happening to our world and its liberties. You cannot have fundamental rights if they lose all their value depending on the emotional and moral response of individuals. Those rights literally exist to protect the worst and most disgusting humans as long as they cause no harm. Moral legislation has sadly been on the rise for years.
This will affect the world simply on the basis of sanctions against foreign countries. You can expect a wide-spread ban on asian websites and sanctions against doll manufacturers. So there will be some pressure on non-EU states.
PS
All these changes did not exist prior to the consultations btw and if you look up the directives name you can see many orgs like IWF, ECPAT demanding a broad criminalization. They have no studies to show for, but simply conflate their own statistics and offenders with an inherent danger of fiction. Of course someone who consumes actual CSAM will also have animated material, just like how a serial killer might also enjoy playing slaughter games. However there are much more slaughter game enjoyers who do not go and kill, or consume actual torture material…
Yeah, the doll market as a whole will be hit since many of the manufacturers also produce and distribute child-like dolls. So they will have to abandon the sale of CLSD worldwide since the directive (as well as DSA) makes this a “worldwide” law.
Any violation of a company, wherever they may be, can be fined by either 1-5% of their worldwide income, or 8 to 40 million Euros. Member states also have to punish consumption, or use of such “reproductions” for EU citizens abroad. They got everyone by the balls, man.
EU regulations always had a worldwide impact and a small Japanese Doll company will rather stop operations than kill themselves off. I already saw this coming since all these western laws banning “production” were virtually unenforced since they are produced in Asia, but now they can get their ass. So these companies will block access to the entirety of the EU to stay under the radar - even tho they are still immune thanks to national laws.
more involvement from the scientific community, appealing to their humanity, reminding them of the difference between real life and fantasy, and reminding them of the overwhelming lack of conclusive evidence causally associating them with real-life abuse.
I’m not going to argue against their desire to criminalize/ban ‘abuse manuals’, or writings with the intention of teaching people on how to abuse/exploit children.
But conflating things like CLSDs and virtual child pornography/fictional sexual material with abuse manuals is both disengenuous and simply bad policy. it completely mischaracterizes the former under the belief that banning the latter cannot be done. Same with deepfakes (defined as images of real minors).
Fiction is created and consumed without the condonement of what they depict.
They’re not ‘pedo propaganda’ - they’re fantasy materials which function as both a form of creative expression or personal entertainment, as well as necessary and helpful outlets which enable people to relieve stresses or anxieties associated with their sexual interests, as well as the reconciliation of these interests with the observation that they must not be acted on, and the goal of living a safe, healthy life.
People need to be free to engage with these aspects about themselves in a harmless setting.
The act of assuming, especially without evidence, that these materials will promote or exacerbate risk among their consumers only reinforces and validates stigma against an interest, which can be expressed with the intention of not harming or sexualizing real children, vs. an act which does harm/exploit real children. Even among those who exhibit a high risk profile, these materials are not shown to exacerbate it.
We need more scientific minds to come forward and challenge the rhetoric that protecting children necessitates the suppression and criminalization of these materials which do not actually harm or involve them, that context and intention don’t matter, or that a fictional ‘child’ is indistinguishable from an actual one.
I hope that more scientists can grow more courage to speak up. I am glad that judges in the US seem to be able to rule more coldly and rationally, at least relatively speaking. But I’m afraid the voices of scientists, free-speech friendly judges, legal scholars, and mental health professionals will not be enough. I may be catastrophizing, but many people have bought into the narrative that fictional depictions = normalization = sexual abuse. They can’t think about it without waiting for their emotions to abate. Even if these experts all agree on this, many people will think they are cronies of the elites, the same elites that Epstein and others belong to.
What entity is this that has the power to financially punish autonomous countries for not extending human rights to dolls, and who are the people writing these things.
No data link doll ownership to increased harm or victimization. There’s nothing in the history of humankind that even suggests that failing to pretend that a doll has human rights has been the reason for misbehavior.
What role is ECPAT playing?
By the way, many countries are not federal constitutional Republics. They may have constitutions, but the constitutions are not supreme. The US has constitutional supremacy.
The problem is that in many places research into exploring sexual alternatives is made impossible due to lack of approval/funding for “ethical concerns” and the fact that such material is already outlawed.
During the drafting of this law they only talked to victims and child protection organizations. The EU commissioner (Ylva Johansson) has held multiple speeches around the world refering to offenders as “pedophiles” and that the world needs to fight “pedophilia and child sexual abuse”. So she is not using pedophilia as a synonym for CSA - she explicitly states to fight the attraction itself. That’s why such laws come to life.
Since there are still two constitutional complaints ongoing in Germany, there is some hope left. Especially since the main points of them is that pedophiles also have a right to sexual self-determination. So it would, depending on the ruling, also affect other material and make it (as the biggest and most influential state) impossible for them to approve the directive:
The constitutional complaints concern the ban on the sale, distribution, purchase and possession of sex dolls with a childlike appearance pursuant to Section 184l StGB. The complainants allege a violation of the general right to protection of ones individual sphere of life in the form of the right to sexual self-determination (Art. 2 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 of the German Basic Law), the right to physical integrity (Art. 2 para. 2 GG), the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of disability (Art. 3 para. 3 sentence 2 GG) and the principle of certainty (Art. 103 para. 2 GG) by § 184l StGB.
Also there is even a national holiday called “National Day Against Pedophilia” in Italy. This stigma and misuse of language is why laws like this can be born.
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that travelling to a country other than that Member State for the purpose of committing, or contributing to the commission of any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 8b, is punishable as a criminal act when
committed intentionally
So if I decide to live in Japan and they find out I bought a doll, or whatever then I must be punished. Even if someone was born in the USA and has dual citizenship then he as to be prosecuted cuz Article 19 extends the directive to every EU citizens regardless of the law in the foreign jurisdiction and it mandates to immediately initiate a criminal case.
Also, they literally give themselves the power to use “honeypots” WITHOUT restricting it to fictional content:
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that effective
investigative tools are available to persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting offences referred to in Articles 3 to 9, such as […] the use of so called ‘honeypots’
Bro how the fuck can you justify using real material. They literally give zero fucks about the images it is just about catching pedophiles like Pokémon. Where is the incentive to delete that shit when they now are allowed to keep every platform running for eternity.
Honestly this is atrocious. National day against pedophilia? What the fuck? I understand a national day against child sexual abuse. Europe hasn’t recovered from their totalitarian and control freak days. Their penchant for authoritarism and control runs deep.
Celebrating being a decent human being while statistics show otherwise. Keeping their blindfolds on!!
The statistics being that most abuse is done by a close friend or family member. 80% being a blood relative. Overwhelmingly by men, of course. None of that is being addressed. Only low hanging fruit to win kudos with public opinion. Banning fiction. Creating “feel good” legislation that criminalizes what’s left as an outlet for the remaining non-offenders to cope with their desires and hormones. That’s about as good an idea as prohibition and “the war on drugs”. It never went away, just underground and the black market. Prostitution is illegal yet one can always be found.
Same has also been ramped up to astounding levels with human trafficking (CST-child sex trafficking). Those willing to break laws aren’t interested in fictional material. Making fictional material a punishable offense makes going after “the real thing” no different. I see all of this puritanical, tyrannical overreach as exacerbating the already out of control situation. Putting more kids in danger, not less. And definitely NOT protecting them!
The truth is that fictional material should be protected and set above all of that. People possessing fictional material should be left alone. They have no desire to offend. Not hunted down in search of CSAM. Nor for having minor attractions. The production of CSAM is not done by them. It’s proven that when people engage with fictional material, the desire for CSAM or pursuit of an encounter drop dramatically. “Thought crimes” are not a crime. Lest most people be charged with attempted murder.
Those crimes of possession will take care of itself, as most finding a fictional outlet no longer desire anything real. I can say first and second hand that it’s true when it comes to doll owners. I can’t even watch porn anymore. I don’t enjoy any of it. It’s proven that the feds are the biggest purveyor of CSAM as they’re constantly trying to entrap people. Fictional outlets should be encouraged. Not suppressed and treated as tools for “grooming”. Only a pervert, or a potential offender, would think of that! Ban and criminalize anyone manufacturing or in possession of candy if that’s the case.
You are correct and here is the study from Germany again for relevancy:
The tendency or arousal towards hypothetical child sexual abuse was found to be lower in doll owners. This was true even after adjustment for higher self-reported sexual attraction to children and objectifying behavior.
This study is already being used/cited as a way to also consider the struggle of pedophiles:
The subject of sexual frustration is only just beginning to be explored in this area, with a small number of researchers talking about the potential utility of working with sexual fantasy and various fictional sexual outlets (e.g., stories, AI-generated content, and silicone dolls) as routes to addressing such frustration.
Source: Toward a Holistic Approach to Treatment and Support for People with Attractions to Children, March 2025, C. Harper, R. Lievesley, E. Woodward
