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.
Just because and in case anyone wonders, I figure I might as well list the states that have passed doll laws.
Arizona
Florida
Hawaii
Kentucky
Louisiana
North Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Wisconsin
I believe Missouri and Texas have passed doll laws.
FWIW
“[A]dvocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time . . . is not sufficient to permit the State to punish [one’s] speech.”
— Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108–09 (1973).
Further, virtual materials are not advocacy. So they have ZERO ground to stand on.
The shape of a lifeless object does not create a moral imperative to protect it, nor does indifference toward such an object constitute a moral failing.
A doll cannot be harmed or wronged. The absence of protective feelings toward it is morally neutral. Punishing someone for not attributing moral significance to a doll’s shape lacks ethical justification, as there is no “evil” or wrongdoing to address.