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.
4 Likes
Iâm one of those people affected by this law. I purchased a doll last year, but now Iâm not allowed to own her any more. Iâve been trying to figure out what I should do. Is there a way I can search for legal counsel near me?
4 Likes
Well, you can start with Google. I was reviewing the text of the law and see â(b) is intended for use in sexual actsâ. Intent isnât 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 canât 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 canât arrest you if they donât know you have it. Donât commit any other offenses that would cause them to search your home.
4 Likes
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
Hereâs 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.
3 Likes
Besides the case laws above, there is 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[.]
The report is out about the doll law.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/proposals/sb321
If one wanted a doll for grooming, one could purchase a my-size Disney doll for a fraction of what it costs to have a doll dropped shipped from China. The narrative about grooming is lame.
3 Likes
Per this Wisconsin law, ownership of a doll could be a class D, E, F, G, H, or I felony⌠This just goes to show that lawmakers have no means of determining the actual severity of this âcrimeâ, and simply want to dish out as much punishments as they can get away with. I sure wish that writing unconstitutional laws was a felony. We would see a lot less of it and wouldnât have to persistently fight for our supposedly protected rights.
1 Like
I mean, youâre just preaching to the choir here. Are you going to send this to Wisconsin lawmakers?
1 Like
I post on X, but the posts get little attention. I considered addressing lawmakers directly, but anyone can do that. I think more need to get involved. I donât have a platform.
https://twitter.com/oc1oc3/status/1698900582801543303?t=ABYPOvq3cDpGM69mBu2_xw&s=19
1 Like
I know it feels like preaching to zombies on X but I appreciate your post and if it only gets a few people to think beyond the âitâs for the childrenâ rhetoric, that is a positive influence on society. Keep up the great work!
3 Likes
The report includes a statement from Australia. That doesnât surprise me.
I hope the bill gets dropped, tabled or abandoned.
The Senate had a hearing on the sex dolls bill, but it hasnât gone to the assembly.
Zombies are more reasonable. You can at least force them to agree with you via necromancy.
3 Likes
âThereâs an argument that these dolls are used to give an outlet to people who are sexually attracted to children, give them a place to take out their fantasies, without taking action on children, but there is no evidence for that,â said State Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart)" - There is plenty of evidence that fantasy outlets work, but it doesnât support the conclusion that politicians would prefer. Who should know better if a doll helps a MAP? An Australian Institute of Imprisoning humans? or the actual MAPs that use them? What about the people that donât use their dolls sexually, but still wanted the most realistic dolls possible? We give interviews freely to anyone researching this matter, but our voices are not being heard. While The Archives of Sexual Behavior report last year was beneficial in showing that dolls do not cause an increase of risk to children, the report totally glossed over the quality of life benefits that I and others explained to the researchers.
3 Likes
Why is it always Republicans who make such idiotic claims without any evidence. We need to be more active in this regard.
6 Likes
The rationale that an expression may eventuality lead to harm is rendered toothless by the required imminent lawless action test in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Please donât forget that.
1 Like
Not sure if youâre interested, but Prostasia has a volunteer activist position available
1 Like
You mean to tell me there isnât already a law against school staff forcing students to undress? And they think sex dolls are the problem? What in the everloving fuck
5 Likes
Soon as I see the words âcouldâ or âmayâ or âpossiblyâ I immediately know thatâs someone talking out of their ass. They are willfully ignorant and could care less about any real facts from actual owners, MAPs, researchers (ie psychologists and psychiatrists), or anything thatâs counter to their âfeel goodâ agenda and politics.
Itâs all a smoke screen to elevate themselves and diminish others. As if their some kind of f***ing hero of children!
Stop the human trafficking going on right under everyoneâs noses! Paid for by our own government!
A quick YouTube search brings up many stories that expose this horrible thing going on that no one is hardly doing anything about, and the media wonât cover it.
âOh but we need to stop these doll perverts. Blah, blah, blahâŚâ
3 Likes
Reminder.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) (Fiction is protected.)
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) (Dolls cannot be found obscene.)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) (Doll ownership cannot be banned as incitement.)
Also, they cannot be banned as offensive or because society doesnât like them.
Texas v. Johnson (1989).
The test for incitement is the imminent lawless action test. In the US, a claim that an expression may eventually, someday, lead to harm cannot legally be used to proscribe.
4 Likes
Tell that to the courts, though.
2 Likes
I get your point here but the fact that those were all court cases makes this comment very funny
2 Likes