Thanks, I could not finish this video due to my impulsive laughing.
Ladies with bouncing boobs - Not OK.
Thicc legged women - Not OK.
Tiny chibi flat-chest girls beating up huge dudes - Not OK.
I’m guessing males with exaggerated muscles are OK, though.
Basically, straight men can’t enjoy things, but straight women can. As a man with functioning eyes, I honestly don’t see anything wrong with a male gaze. I’m not speechless out of shame. I’m speechless because I honestly don’t understand the “bad” that I’m supposed to apologize for. FYI, when I say “apologize”, I mean the original Greek definition, which basically means a super polite explanation, as in Plato’s Apology.
Females are simply more shielded.
Alas, too much shielding becomes shadow.
Doll laws are dead letters.
To the extent that doll ownership is framed as incitement, it is protected.
See Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
If a doll law case ever reaches a court, it will be struck down.
(Edited for clarity)
Incitement is protected unless the incitement satisfies the imminent lawless action test. Framing doll ownership as incitement renders doll ownership protected as incitement.
Formatted to fit in two X posts.
Well, let’s get to it, then.
Who would want to be s test case?
Someone who won’t take a plea bargain beforehand, of course.
That wouldn’t be necessary. All that would really need to happen is that a person or entity sue the states and assert that the law is unconstitutional. there are some well-rounded arguments which hammer this point home pretty hard, but lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming.
It’s actually how the Free Speech Coalition got VCP on the same legal footing as adult pornography and got the CPPA struck down.
Unfortunately, we can’t all be as rich as JK Rowling.
Actually, I don’t think it’s that simple. I have been listening to a number of lawyers online about a different issue. One of whom is accepted to the Supreme Court Bar.
You can’t go into court just because you don’t like a law. You have to show standing and that you are or will be harmed by that law if it’s applied.
In other words, admit to having these dolls.
You’d be putting your life under a microscope. You’d have to go in with a pile of testimony from other owners and a ton of psychological research on it. It would be near impossible because for the most part, people don’t have much empathy in general. And especially when it comes to dolls and MAPs or anything related children.
Somehow doll owners are seen as potential predators, even though they bother no one. I’ve found almost all, including myself, have lost interest overall in our MAPness. Obsessive thoughts are gone. Once we have our dolls we’re super happy! They’re the safest thing for any MAP!
It’s reasonable to assume such would not be necessary when doll laws are utterly unconstitutional.
The idea behind the incitement clause is that when there is no incitement clause, folks can make stuff up as reasons to proscribe. Banning all that can be called incitement is incompatible with freedom of speech. That’s why the bar is the imminent lawless action test. Incitement is protected except for incitement that satisfies the imminent lawless action test.
That’s what I mean when I write that proscribing doll ownership as incitement renders doll ownership protected as incitement. Incitement must be protected in order to protect free speech.
I understand some dislike that way of framing it. I dislike that way of framing it. The matter is, it is how doll ownership has been framed.
I also suspect that most consider the idea of framing a failure to feel protective of a doll as a threat to society as far fetched.
The true threats exception is not an option. Buying a doll doesn’t address anyone. Doll ownership doesn’t address anyone.
[C]onstitutional 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.
It’s not evil to think that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter. There is no evil to punish for. It’s not evil to not subscribe to a symbolic ideology that resembles magical thinking. No activity that’s conducted within the confines of solitude can breach social boundaries. Owning a doll is no more similar to acting out than undressing to shower is to undressing to board a bus. To the extent that it cannot be found necessary for one to care deeply about what happens to a doll, punishment for what someone does to a doll cannot be justified. Punishment for not caring about what no one else cares about cannot be justified. What happens to a doll doesn’t matter, and a failure to feel protective of what doesn’t matter renders nothing to evaluate evil with. It’s not evil to think that shape isn’t what makes anything precious.
Exactly right. It’s the conflation of dolls as “practice” for a desire to harm a child. How can one “practice” an action on a non-responsive thing? It’s akin to bayonet dummies during WWII. Different when a person is fighting back. It’s assuming that’s it’s only purpose. And surmising that people owning them are without a doubt, looking to harm a child. How arrogant do you have to be? Denying people their therapeutic use. Or even as art.
Laws like these can then be applied to other things; like guns for instance. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Guns just make it easier for those people and more “hands-off”. No different than most ANY object can be used for harmful purposes. You don’t see too many pick-ax and rake murders though.
Dolls don’t harm children or facilitate harm. Of course they can be used for “grooming” if one is so inclined. So can a “Barbie” style doll or any other type of doll. But also pornography whether in printed form or video. Many children are enticed to do things for candy or money (buying them something).
Politicians saying the ONLY purpose for child-like dolls is for “practice” or “grooming” is no different than saying that about ANY doll or candy for that matter. If candy can be used to entice children to do things, then maybe candy should be banned as well? Then applying that to gun legislation or whatever else they surmise harm could be contrived from. It’s ludicrous!
Imminent: About to happen, occur, or take place very soon, especially of something which won’t last long.
There is nothing “imminent” about dolls.
Or inherent danger from their existence. Therefore ownership shouldn’t be under scrutiny or a punishable offence as no offence has occurred by owning a doll. Only people’s ideas of visualizations which offends their religious morals. Just because someone finds something offensive, doesn’t make it to mean evil. Especially when it falls under things people do in private.
Don’t forget Texas v. Johnson (1989).
The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.
That doll ownership is about an activity that’s conducted within the confines of solitude adds a layer to that.
I’d say Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is more on point.
Well, time to put theory to practice: Man Charged for Dolls in Florida (looking for a follow up)
This is somewhat amusing.
I wonder what response asking whether the Creator cares about how someone handles a doll would elicit.
I doubt such a question would be answered in a straightforward manner.