I have seen some posts regarding CLSD laws, so this news might be interesting.
The german supreme court just released their yearly report today and those reports always include upcoming decisions planned for the current year (2025).
The constitutional complaints regarding the doll ban are included in the report under “Upcoming decisions in 2025” meaning the court will finally rule on them. It can basically happen any day now.
In total there are 68 planned ruling for this year and out of those only 18 made it into the in-print yearly report. So the doll ban is important enough to be mentioned throught that outlet. The ruling can also affect other nations who are currently planning to introduce a ban since the netherlands for example referred to other states saying “we are behind”.
The constitutional complaints are directed against the ban on the marketing, acquisition, sale, import and possession of sex toys with a childlike appearance. The legislator had justified the introduction of the criminal offense in particular with the risk that sex dolls with a childlike appearance lower the inhibition threshold for sexual violence against children and thus indirectly contribute to sexualized violence against children. The complainants refer to contrary studies and see the ban as a disproportionate intrusion into their intimate sphere.
This announcement is also a great sign, because it means that the complaints had no formal errors and were argued in a valid way. Around 95% of constitutional complaints do not even get accepted for decision making, so this is indeed a great achievement already.
I will post the final decision once it is online and hope it is positive to give some people here hope and to not give up fighting.
I will now check their homepage every friday, because that is when they list the upcoming rulings for the following week. I unironically already prepared my departure to abroad, but I will wait this ruling out first and go from there lmao.
Here’s hoping that the German courts may still abide by the rules of reason and adherence to the sciences which rightfully govern us all. There’s simply no logical justification for humanizing an inanimate object on the unfounded presupposition that its existence will motivate crime.
