According to the stepping stone rhetoric, doll ownership communicates an advocacy to commit an unlawful action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
“Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid 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. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, overruled.”
…I’m not comfortable with even addressing it this way, because even fictional stories involving non-existent characters or settings which glorify such pedophilic fantasies are not read by their respective audiences as condonements of real-life acts of abuse on the simple fact that they’re consumed by those who do not support real-life abuse (anti-contact MAPs and anti-contact non-MAPs).
But it’s helpful.
I agree with what you say. The stepping stone nonsense needs to be addressed. That thing is used as a tool to pry into private affairs that no one has any business prying into. The question of law is not about endorsing private conduct but, rather, it’s about whether punishing can be justified. No one appears to view this issue from that perspective. Also, all opposition is shut out.
Can anyone improve on this statement?
Motive.
The doll laws are anchored to a motivation that cannot be demonstrated.
One buys a doll because one likes the doll and not because anything resembles it. The buyer doesn’t care or control whether something resembles the doll. The doll laws are anchored to the assumption that one buys a doll because something resembles it when the buyer doesn’t even care about what is assumed.
Punishing for buying a doll is tethered to false assumptions and factors the buyer doesn’t care about or control.
I think that this is the main problem.
None of these people take into account women that own them. Maybe just like dressing them up. Girls DO like to play with dolls, no? Some women use them to act as surrogates for children that have died. Or appreciate them as lifelike dolls.
The same woman that argued with me whose child died, was adamant that she could never do that! Well, if I say a trans woman is still a man I’m in breech of some laws now showing up. Well, WTF? That’s perfectly acceptable in society now. She’s telling me that “no one uses a doll as a surrogate”. I could say no one identifies as the opposite sex. Then I’m the bad guy!
Do they think women are having lesbian masturbation with them? What then? They go so far as to say someone just looking at one and jerking off should be a sex crime. I’m willing to bet they’ll deem pictures of young-looking dolls to be the same as if it were a REAL child.
If I’m having sex with my petite, adult girlfriend and imagining my 13yo girlfriend when I was 14, while doing it, will I be punished? Is that a crime? Are thoughts crimes now?
And to actually have some delusion that robots will be made to “practice” raping a child. What planet are you from? They’d only cost like, IDK, some ridiculous amount of money that NO predator is going to want to invest time or money into. Or have a doll made to look like a child they know. By the time it’s finished, the kid’s a year older. How would you prove that??
What if I put a bunch of pillows together while masturbating with an onahole with a recording of a rape scene playing; am I practicing rape because I’m thinking of a young girl while doing it?
Proof the world has lost every bit of sense and everyone’s delusional. We’re going to need lawyers with the biggest balls! And they could even be women!
Still this.
It is much harder to acquire such a doll, because it is a physical object which needs to pass multiple borders. So, this in it of itself already heavily limits the amount of cases. CSAM related crimes however are primarily committed through the internet where criminals feel more safe and have an easier time.
It should also be pretty obvious that someone who consumes X could also do Y, or own Z. And as you already said; It does not prove that one of them leads to the other. Just like how some murderers play brutal video games, some predators also own dolls.
The best way to counter this is by trying to make clear what such legislation eventually leads to. Criminal law is being pushed more and more into the realms of thought crime. There is currently a law being criticized which was implemented to prohibit so called “enemy lists”, because it also tries to punish “what if” scenarios. Experts were against it, because it pushes criminal liability once again into a vague state with no actual harm being done. They warned that it could be used to silence journalists and what happened? Exactly that.
There needs to be more awareness, because these types of laws legitimize the use of chat control and other authoritarian methods.
Especially with these machines coming our way:
Mind-reading machines are here: is it time to worry?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01486-z
The idea that authorties will quickly latch on to the idea of mind-reading IS frightening indeed. The established governments of the world have all had secret projects for decades on how to implement mind-control over people. They’ve honed the media to a fairly effective tool through repetition.
Latching on to AI at this early stage means it could and likely will give you false positives, so to speak.
By making everyone a criminal they can then extend pris
on to the entire planet. Making us alll slaves. As if most of us weren’t already because of this fiat system of money. We can already see what’s coming, “you’ll own nothing and be happy”. They extend their twisted logic to be like, “you’re only here for about 100 years. That’s how long you need to use stuff. You just slave your life away to pay for the stuff you use and then it goes to someone else and the cycle repeats.”
Seems to me we’re being set up once again. When longevity technology takes hold, only the elites will have access to live for almost 1,000 years, leaving the rest of humanity as their slaves. We’re merely in transition to another dystopia. Unless we can progress spiritually and break out of it?
There is hope.
A federal judge overturned a ban on drag in Tennessee.
Here’s an article that explains a Trump appointed judge overturned the ban as unconstitutional.
The article explains that the Honorable Judge Parker stated, “Simply put, no majority of the Supreme Court has held that sexually explicit — but not obscene — speech receives less protection than political, artistic, or scientific speech.”
And pretty soon, this will change too. The obscenity doctrine has no place in a functional democracy, moreover, being sexually explicit does not rob speech of value. That whole dichotomy was based on a lie, a fallacy.
I love it, because what has been said by the female in the video is so blatantly wrong and contradictory that it could pass well enough as a satirical comedy skit; plausible enough content for The Onion.
I hate it, because these people are actually serious, and anyone who would disagree with the arguments would be placed into the crosshair of presumed CSA advocacy.
“…sex dolls because they are afraid to have sex with a child…”
Which is good. We don’t want people having sex with children. We want people to be redirected away from children. Psychotherapy and safe detours that are self-incentivizing and are basically free for a nation to adopt are effective, just so by allowing and leaving them be. But then…
“100% become no longer satisfied with sex dolls” … “[and suddenly no longer afraid] and will move onto sex with a child”
The complete 180 degree flip which builds and connects an imaginary bridge to people who do not want, nor are applicable, to have this bridge connected to them. A quantum leap from mild bell pepper to Carolina Reaper.
“I’m no longer satisfied with water. [moves on to drink sulfuric acid.]”
Typical low quality arguments. No actual proposed solutions to prevent harm to children. No thought provocation, pragmatic reasoning, or anything of real use. Low effort.
We can do better.
It’s not about demands; it’s about unjustifiable punishment.
One doesn’t need to be a sympathizer to find unjustified punishment revolting.
All should feel insulted by the notion that they could be punished for buying a doll.
I like this article that mentions obscenity law and how the law conflicts with the Brandenburg framing of the First Amendment.
The article cites the 85% CSAM rate associated with importations of small dolls but fails to acknowledge that the reporting countries count cartoons and dolls as CSAM.
In most countries that criminalize them, they don’t lump in fiction with real-life abuse. Even the UK does this.
But an “85% association rate” seems astronomical and biased by media publicity.
Laws against dolls are a way to circumvent the 4th amendment, seize everyone’s computers, and dredge for CSAM. Same reasons tthey trying to ban encryption and are pushing toward everyone’s personal data and all their personal computer data being open to the government. It’s a way to take total control over everyone in the name of “saving the children!”.
Ultimately controlling all communication among the public. Can’t have dissention against tyranny if no one can have private communication and firearms. It’s a totalitarian agenda.
I’m a little late to the party. Here are ideas to consider.
The pretext to ban is tethered to the idea that evil deeds follow evil thoughts.
It’s not an evil thought to think that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter. It’s not an evil act to be no more protective of a doll than of a nondescript sex toy.
To the extent that the pretext to ban resembles sympathetic magic, the rationale is akin to punishing for witchcraft. Imagining a connection between objects solely because of shape is magical thinking.
Jenkins v. Georgia states that nothing that doesn’t explicitly depict hard core conduct can be found obscene.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition states that fictional material is protected.
Stanley v. Georgia states that possession of even that which can be found obscene is protected.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Link. {{meta.fullTitle}}
The pretext used to ban is a media effects argument. The Brandenburg framing of the First Amendment means that unless speech (or media) that advocates lawless action is likely to cause immediate lawless action, it is constitutionally protected.
Crime in thought is definitely not crime in deed. Otherwise, I would have performed the Nine Exterminations on so many people because I know that they would kill me if the law was preventing them from doing so.
I’m one of those people affected by this law. I purchased a doll last year, but now I’m not allowed to own her any more. I’ve been trying to figure out what I should do. Is there a way I can search for legal counsel near me?
Well, you can start with Google. I was reviewing the text of the law and see “(b) is intended for use in sexual acts”. Intent isn’t easy to prove. Additionally, there is a prohibition on advertising dolls, that may run afoul of the First Amendment. Then there is the Ex Post Facto clause in the Constitution, you can’t make something illegal after the fact.
Fighting this would cost you a boatload of money, though. Best recommendation is to keep your mouth closed and tell no one. They can’t arrest you if they don’t know you have it. Don’t commit any other offenses that would cause them to search your home.
This is late. Here are some things to keep in your pocket. Case law matters more than most other things.
Stanley v. Georgia (Possession is protected.)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Fictional material is protected.)
Jenkins v. Georgia (Dolls cannot be found obscene.)
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Here’s the link for that.
The pretext used to ban is a media effects argument. The Brandenburg framing of the First Amendment means that unless speech (or media) that advocates lawless action is likely to cause immediate lawless action, it is protected.
I mentioned those laws already in this thread. Please keep those in your pocket.