What’s so interesting about these analyses is that they have to draw a line between pedophilia and acts of child exploitation.
That distinction shouldn’t be so powerful, but it serves to tear apart the credibility that these dolls should be banned, or rather could safely be banned.
It comes down to the issue of thoughtcrime. If the rationale is to punish someone for their thoughts and interests alone, and not some external act with its own harmful elements to it, you undermine the civil liberties of everyone else.
The rationale behind the doll ban may seem sound, or even like common sense to many people, but it lacks real-world evidence to justify it with. Case examples that support the rationale are later found to be anecdotes, and evidence of their use as harm-reduction outlets was documented in the scientific record.
Yet they still chose to prohibit it. Unmoved by expert testimony and science itself.
I hope that reconsideration petition is still alive.
Yeah, the court confirmed that it was received. If it gets rejected then you will hear of it within a few months. I do not know what the petition includes, so hard to guess the outcome.
I could imagine the court accepting the petition and ordering an expert opinion from the same people they quoted from TV interviews. Small criminal courts ask for expert opinions all the time, but yet the highest court did not? This seems very odd, so a violation to the right of a fair ruling seems plausible. Especially considering the court quotes the therapy program wrong. It is not for every pedophile; only for those who struggle and the program itself differentiates between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder unlike the court. Sources are weird, quotes are wrong, diagnosis is dated etc. Seems like an unfair proceeding. No hearing of the complainants and what they have to say etc. They should be able to confront these arguments in a hearing. They do this for trash like “Can a notary lawyer work until X”, but not for this? Okay?
It is very unlikely, because the petition is not legally recognized. It is essentially like begging and I can imagine that it has to pass a clerk who prepares incoming papers for the judges first. Morally it would be right to correct this decision, because as far as I know every single analysis from people in the field came to the conclusion that the decision is dogshit.
Edit:
Oh and just after this ruling the court also demanded in another ruling that complainants perfectly research their complaints and quote everything perfectly and also take critical voices into account. Everything the court failed to do in the doll case. This is now also being torn to pieces, because the constitution makes it clear that everyone including a homeless guy out in the streets should be able to file a complaint on a piece of toilet paper, but they just raised the formal barrier and made it impossible for people without a lawyer.
UK now also banning possession of CLSD and they are not even hiding it anymore that it is not about protection:
‘I personally don’t like the idea of it,’ she says. 'The notion that you can safely feed a sexual interest in children sits very uneasily with me, so I think these dolls should be banned.