It’s one thing to condemn treating a person as though they were a doll that has no human rights. It’s quite another thing to condemn treating a doll as though it were a doll that has no human rights.
Punishment for not pretending that a doll is precious cannot be justified.
If we agree that it’s not morally relevant to care about what happens to a doll, then condemning someone for not caring about what happens to a doll doesn’t make sense.
I don’t think a child sex doll can be prosecuted, since there’s no sexual activity actually occurring, and mere nudity doesn’t fit that bill.
There are other precedents which prohibit the enforcement of bans on other types of sex toys, so hopefully those can be leveraged in a meaningful way to help this person.
This is thoughtcrime, plain and simple.
No empirical or scientific evidence supports banning these, and the rationale offered by legislatures across the country to justify these bans are also unsatisfactory.
The Florida Senate made its decision after being presented with one-sided evidence from experts arguing that using these dolls would likely “reinforce pedophilic ideation” for some, and, due to the risk of reoffending associated with these kinds of activities, child molesters gaining access to these dolls could positively reinforce their behavior, which would pose a threat to children. Others have also expressed concern that the dolls’ nature normalizes the type of behavior that involves an adult molesting a child.
I didn’t recommend that he see that lawyer. I just wanted to show an acknowledgement that the argument went entirely unchallenged.
By the way, that rationale cannot be used.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Hess v. Indiana (1973) prohibit the use of such rationale to proscribe.
There is no exception to First Amendment protection that excludes fomenting from constitutional protection unless it satisfies the legal test for an exception.
It doesn’t take much effort to see that the rationale is a ruse. There cannot be freedom of speech if expression can be proscribed with contrived speculations.
There is nothing in the history of humankind that even suggests that not pretending that a doll has human rights was ever the reason someone acted out. The nonsense needs to be quashed.
Freedom isn’t about telling someone what doll they have to pretend is precious.
So for example, say a law defines an “obscene child-like sex doll” as anatomically correct, that it was meant or designed or promoted for sexual purposes, and that it must fail the Miller test.
Wouldn’t it meet the “patently offensive” requirement of Miller because even though the doll is merely nude, the person had sex with it and that act itself counts as a “depiction” that would be “patently offensive”? What if the doll came with packaging containing “offensive” labeling and descriptions? Wouldn’t those be “part of the doll”?
probably not, because it wouldn’t actually depict anything. merely being anatomically correct wouldn’t fall into that category because ‘mere nudity’ isn’t something that can be regarded as that.
@Obin knows more about the precedents governing this.
It’s obvious that obscenity doesn’t refer to what can later be created. They could proscribe pencils if that were the case.
A reading of Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) clears that up anyway.
The word “depict” is in the present tense, which does not refer to potentiality.
To be obscene, the content must “[d]epict sexual conduct in a ‘patently offensive’ way.”
If they have to imagine it, it is not depicted.
I’m short on sleep. Sorry for all the edits.
Here’s more.
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 408 U. S. 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 354 U. S. 489; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Under the holdings announced today, no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive “hard core” sexual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law, as written or construed.
I suspect that the accused may feel pressured into accepting a plea deal. This is one reason I am interested in following the case.
With no hardcore conduct depicted, there’s nothing to satisfy the Miller test. That means a jury has no role. These dolls are no more vulnerable to being legally proscribed than other types of play dolls. The ruling of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition has that covered.
.(b) This Court’s own view of the film impels the conclusion that the film’s depiction of sexual conduct is not patently offensive. The camera does not focus on the bodies of actors during scenes of “ultimate sexual acts,” nor are the actors’ genitals exhibited during those scenes. The film shows occasional nudity, but nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller’s standards. P. 418 U. S. 161.
A doll does not display anything that could be described as an ultimate sexual act.
I went to review this post and noticed that one of my posts shows as deleted by author. Can this be undone? I’m unsure what I could have inadvertantly tapped.
I figured it out, exploring features.
What can be regarded as permissibly obscene and what qualifies as proscribed obscenity are different things. If there is nothing about the content that can be construed as depicting the act, there’s nothing to satisfy the Miller test. Nudity alone doesn’t cut it.
@Obin Your post of the legalities and cases have been very helpful in compiling compelling evidence and precedence against these unjust laws, when and if the day comes when anyone needs to go up against the state. No one should ever feel ashamed, or be shamed into a plea, or have ANY fear of these intrusive laws.
Finding a viable solution to what could be a harmful problem to society and everyone involved should never be something that’s cast down upon such as it is, stigmatized. People should be quietly admired for coming up with creative solutions to their otherwise “harmful” attractions. Even if most people have strange and creepy thoughts about it. Or are “uncomfortable” with the idea. Too bad! They’re not faced with the same dilemma. Much like I will never understand how an alcoholic could drink cologne or mouthwash to get their “fix”. Because most people think about sex all the time, yet repress and deny the thoughts due to religious moralism.
At the end of the day, no one is hurt and the person feels whole and fulfilled by their surrogate. Rather than lonely, empty, depressed, and anxious for fear they may act out on another person. Destroying both of their lives.
It’s simply not morally relevant to care about what happens to a doll. To the extent that no one is expected to care about a doll for the doll’s sake, condemning someone for not caring about a doll doesn’t make sense.
It’s not evil to not subscribe to sympathetic magic.
Well-said. There is no actual case or concern with this one, and it is a perfect example of the exceptions that are refused to be allowed, due to an inconclusive pretense of, “It could lead to…”
Yet, here we see that it did not. This is not always the case.
Unfortunately, it will take more of these one-sided convictions to surface before it will be challenged.
[A]t worst, it amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time. This is not sufficient to permit the State to punish Hess’ speech. Under our decisions, “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 395 U. S. 447 (1969).