And how did you come to this conclusion?
What a shame… I’m hopeful that these laws will be challenged for violating the First Amendment.
You underestimate the cowardice of either potential defense attorneys or even potential defendants.
No one would care about the appearance of a doll one uses as a door stop. This is about what someone does to an object one could hand to a dog as a chew toy.
Doll play is as distinguishable from acting out as undressing to shower is from undressing to ride a bus. Undressing to shower does not normalize or lead to undressing to ride a bus.
The gateway rhetoric is beyond nonsensical. This is like claiming that drinking water will be the reason one later drinks lemonade. Drinking water may very well be the reason one doesn’t later drink lemonade. In fact, it’s not inconceivable that one could prefer water to lemonade.
The stepping stone rhetoric relies on the assertion that a thing won’t be satisfying, so it should be banned as a stepping stone.
Such rhetoric could be used to propose a ban on petroleum jelly, claiming that use of the product reinforces a perversion, won’t be found satisfying and, therefore, will lead to acting out.
Ultimately, if one can be happy with petroleum jelly, one can certainly be happy with a doll.
The gateway, or stepping stone, rhetoric is trash.
Wisconsin is next.
The article mentions Prostasia and the recent research but presents a bad take on the research by omitting information.
Other tweets are receiving over a thousand views.
@elliot Would it be worth considering that we reach out to the AP reporter and urge them to correct their comments on the FL story?
(that way they know the story was bogus and non-credible)
Might be worth a shot. Prostasia is already discussed accurately in the story so them requesting a correction might be strange, but if people where want to reach out it could definitely be worthwhile
Does this need to be addressed?
“in my further research” - provides no sources to “further research”.
Why cant the public have a little proof that these robotic rape machines even exist? If I tape a speaker to my doll’s head and make her play audio from the tree rape scene in The Evil Dead, does that make her a rape robot? What level of electronics do I have to add, to say that I have a robot rape doll? How about I wrap her with christmas lights? The ignorance of this “law officer” and politician is dumbfounding. Oh, and where can I find the big red “RAPE” button?.. My doll and every doll I have ever seen or heard of must be defective. - Now that I think about it, Teddy Ruxpin had all this figured out in the 80’s.
Statewide, right? I mean, Pigtails in Paint is HQ’d in Florida, and they can show nude real children for artistic purposes, so it would be hypocritical to go after nonliving plastic in that case. However, I also understand that if the law is statewide and not nationwide, Florida law has little bearing on Utah law. Also, the Little Lupe case, which shows that appearing “underage” has no bearing on actually being underage. was in Puerto Rico, which is a US territory, but again, I’m not sure if that can affect Utah law.
Utah enforces the new doll law.
At the very least, this looks like Stanley v. Georgia should be enough.
So, I ask again, anyone want to challenge this? Otherwise, posturing doesn’t help anyone.
Ashcroft and Williams should be enough, actually. The dolls aren’t ‘obscene’ and whether or not they qualify as that remains to be seen.
This will be a test of the legislation, and hopefully it will be leave the Legislature wanting. There is no data which supports their criminalization, and hopefully this will be an opportunity for the ACLU or other civil liberties groups to be a voice of reason.
This is troubling news.
And so it will also be a test of whether or not they’re useful.
Jenkins v. Georgia obviously keeps dolls out of reach of obscenity laws. There is no depiction of hard core conduct.
Exactly what would interest any civil liberty organization to get involved?
Why couldn’t the defendant merely appeal?
Well, ideally a civil liberties group like the ACLU would come to the defense of this individual, or would submit briefs on behalf of the defendant or advise his council in some manner, as that’s precisely what they’ve done in other cases relating to ‘obscene’ articles.
Though this person isn’t exactly the most ‘admirable’ or easy-to-sympathize with individual (given their past arrest for CSAM possession), this type of enforcement represents a precedential step and the success of this type of prosecution could lead to even greater suppression, as it would embolden outside inquirers who have this sort of power to act in-kind, which…given the current judiciary climate, would probably be best fought against.
I’ve posted the ACLU of Utah’s page here:
Hopefully this type of concern can be forwarded to the defense council of the individual and we can help fight back against a heinous and unworkable law.
This may not be relevant but does appear to need to be addressed. Folks keep claiming the doll represents and, therefore, should be viewed as evil. It’s that and the idea that acting out the evil fantasy of harming someone should be forbidden. Although attacking fantasy cannot be justified for numerous reasons–including that one should be the god of their own fantasies–I addressed one remark in this way.
One buys a doll because one likes the doll and not because of whether anything resembles it.
It’s remarkable that folks cannot digest that someone could genuinely and literally think of a doll as a doll and like the doll without the idea of some fantasy.
This has to be corralled. Folks insist on a thing that doesn’t necessarily exist. I think of my dolls as dolls.
My dolls represent what they literally are. I like what they literally are. I don’t like them because of anything that might resemble them.
This representation narrative needs to be addressed.
I’m blocked again.
There is a control factor that no one appears to grasp.
I buy a doll because I like the doll. I do not have control over whether anything resembles a doll I like. Punishing someone for liking a doll is tethered to a factor one has no control of.
I tried commenting on that KSL news site. All I did was ask what was the crime and who was the victim. I also suggested that LEOs should have bought the guy lunch for dealing with his sexuality in a way that doesn’t involve real children, and mentioned that dolls do not meet the definition of obscene material.
I suppose facts and common sense are seen as a threat to mainstream media. Got to keep pushing hatred, disinformation, and division at all cost. Keep those gaslights burning brightly.