wait, does that mean you think a childâs life and safety are worth 50% more than that of an inanimate object?
7 Likes
One of my former coworkers was a survivor of child sexual abuse and when I told her about Australia, the UK, and other governmentâs attempts at criminalizing child sex dolls, she genuinely got upset.
âSo you mean to tell me that they wanna put forward money and resources to go after DOLLS and not human trafficking victims or child pornographers?? Does my struggle mean nothing to them??â
11 Likes
Iâm a little late to this thread.
Proscribing dolls proscribes expressing the ideas that sympathetic magic has no effects, that what happens to a doll doesnât matter and that itâs never morally relevant for anyone to feel more protective of any doll than of a nondescript sex toy.
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974).
â[N]udity alone does not render material obscene under Millerâs standards.â
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The test for incitement is the imminent lawless action test. Doll ownership doesnât even express intent or advocation, so it cannot be proscribed as incitement. Proscribing because of speculative ideas (such as normalize, desensitize, intensifies, or other speculations) is disallowed.
Texas v. Johnson (1989).
âThe Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable[.]â
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
â[S]peech that records no crime and creates no victims by its productionâ is not image based abuse.
I will now tap on dates to get the year to show.
2 Likes
And when theyâre not used for that should that person be punished? For wanting to love and holds his dolls. Not feel alone and abandoned. Creating their personalities to be what he needs. Or do you force them into an uncomfortable relationship with a woman he has no interest in, who mistreats him and is cruel. Go fuck yourself @joycelin!
1 Like
Youâre heartless and cold.
2 Likes