Humans have short memories. What appears to be “memories” are usually momentary kneejerks.
1 Like
Banning fiction is basically outlawing your very thoughts. Especially when you are simply consuming your fantasy and not sharing it publicly. There will be a time where thoughts can be captured using technology and when this moment arrives all of these countries will have to outlaw content “produced” using it.
There is no difference in drawing lolicon on a piece of paper, or thinking about it in your head. This is quite literally a thoughtcrime, but people fail to see it.
4 Likes
The links for the doll law [for Wisconsin] are incorrect on the doll laws page. Here’s a link for the bill in Wisconsin.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/proposals/reg/sen/bill/sb321
It appears they want to use ideas from the CPPA. Even though the dolls are for personal, private use, they make wild claims. IOW, they seek to undermine Ashcroft v. FSC (2002) for the same reasons that the SCOTUS dismissed.
There is no normalize exception clause to 1A protection, by the way.
I don’t get why someone thinks introducing a law that is equivalent to what has been struck down changes things.
There is no way a state has the authority to reverse a SCOTUS decision.
The state has to cite what exception clause to 1A protection gives the state authority to proscribe.
Thank you, elliot.
2 Likes
Links seem correct, I think this is a different bill. Adding it to the tracker now
3 Likes
I just checked the Tennessee bill.
This shows in the bill.
For purposes of this amendment, a child-like sex doll is an obscene anatomically correct doll, mannequin, or robot that is intended for sexual stimulation or gratification and that has the features of, or has features that resemble those of, a minor.
What’s amusing here is that Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) precludes finding a doll legally obscene.
Gonna be really funny if the courts say that the law is constitutional but literally can’t be enforced because it’s impossible for a doll to be obscene. Obviously I still hope the whole thing gets thrown out or doesn’t pass
2 Likes
I apologize. That last one is from the Tennessee law that passed.
I agree. Yes, they can ban what is obscene, of course, which a doll cannot be. That’s amusing.
That will change once rational, liberal and libertarian-minded jurists reassume majority control of the judiciary.
I’m reading the supplementary material used by lawmakers to justify these bans, and it’s remarkable how much of their claims can be rebutted with the arguments made in the Ashcroft court, specifically about claims of “normalization” and other buzzwords which may satisfy the intuitions of an uninformed or offended layperson.
And even so - other claims can be so easily be rebutted with “no, that’s not how any of this works”! The lack of media literacy or psychological understanding truly astounds me.
They love clinging to the idea that they could be used to groom real minors, which is such an easy claim to rebut in a legal context, as are many of these other claims.
3 Likes
I love the decisions that get handed down against the anti-trans bills. One judge flat-out had to explain to legislators that trans kids exist
3 Likes
From Ashcroft v. FSC
That the evil in question depends upon the actor’s unlawful conduct, defined as criminal quite apart from any link to the speech in question, establishes that the speech ban is not narrowly drawn.
That state doesn’t have the authority to reverse a SCOTUS decision.
I reference the text of the Wisconsin bill. By the way, that bill is lengthy.
944.19 Prohibiting child sex dolls. (1) In this section, “child sex doll” means
an anatomically correct doll, mannequin, or robot, with features that are intended
to resemble a minor that is intended for use in sex acts, for sexual gratification, or
for the purpose of manipulating children into participating in sex acts, instructing
children how to participate in sexual acts, or normalizing sexual behavior with
children.
Because of the wording, it appears it might be best to merely ask for the state to cite what exception clause authorizes proscribing.
Similar wording could be used to ban alcohol, adult porn or regular sex toys. One could propose a ban of baseball bats, assuming the only reason for buying one is to break windows.
1 Like
Another Ashcroft quote that runs through my mind when these bills come up in legislatures
The government may not prohibit speech because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed “at some indefinite future time.” Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108 (1973) (per curiam). The government may suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law only if “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam). There is here no attempt, incitement, solicitation, or conspiracy. The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.
You haven’t the slightest idea how much of a gem, how much foresight and wisdom went into crafting these words. They alone serve as a proverbial stake in the heart of the very rationales and arguments which detractors and censorship-friendly lawmakers and jurists cling to when dealing with matters pertaining to obscenity, the argument of ‘mental wrought’, of literal plain-as-day thoughtcrime.
It will be overturned within the coming years. Miller, Roth, and all relevant precedents which ground the obscenity doctrine. They simply cannot contend with reality, for they themselves are not based in reality, only idealism and emotion. There is no fact, only opinion and conjecture.
Convincing the judiciary that MAPs and sexual minorities have free speech rights, too, isn’t difficult, especially when there’s no compelling evidence to show that it’s harmful and that these prohibitions themselves are a cause for harm that otherwise wouldn’t exist, and that the type of moralism they seek to enshrine our caselaw with has been thoroughly critiqued and rejected by a multitude of 20th century precedents and doctrines, like due process and substantive due process. The right to be free from arbitrary and unjust moralism is implicit in even the most contemporary of concepts pertaining to ‘ordered liberty’. The same rationales, the same arguments that were used against things like de-segregation, interracial marriage, consensual private adult sexual acts, and the right to purchase condoms/contraceptives, and the right of homosexuals to engage in consensual sexual conduct and even marry all emphatically reject the moralist argument, and lean more and more towards liberalism and the ‘harm principle’. I fail to see how the right to purchase a child-like sex doll or consume virtual/fictitious child pornography does not apply here.
2 Likes
That passage appears to wrap this up.
I feel disappointed in myself for not singling out Brandenburg v. Ohio much sooner than i did.
It’s a mistake to not check out cited decisions inside of opinions.
Banning things merely because of a potential for things to be used for illegal conduct, one could propose a ban even on firearms. Imagine that.
I don’t think they want to see such a precedent set.
The story includes a doll related charge in Utah.
A link in the story leads to this.
Titles show in the links’ text.
Worth noting that both those men were also charged with other sexual offenses involving real children.
One was “arrested Thursday and booked into Purgatory Correctional Facility facing one second-degree felony count of sexual exploitation of a minor.”
The other was “was arrested and charged with 10 second-degree felony counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and three misdemeanor counts of voyeurism by electronic equipment as well as the possession of a child sex doll.”
This is the law in Utah regarding sexual exploitation of a minor:
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5b/76-5b-S201.html
Basically they were charged for something like CSAM as well.
1 Like
So far, it appears that states intend to use the doll laws very selectively.
I want the doll laws expunged.
Anyway, it appears that so long as one is otherwise clean, owning a doll won’t lead to issues.
1 Like
If one is a politician looking to be reelected again and again, framing “pedophiles” as the group who is against you is a good plan if you want the vast majority of the electorate to be for you. 
1 Like
The terms that apply are political grandstanding and political blackmailing. No one wants to be the target of shaming and shunning. Interestingly, the question never asked is whether punishment can be justified.
3 Likes
The massive failure of democracies. Stupid people elect stupid leaders.
2 Likes
A minor is anyone <18 years. By this very definition you banish all petite, or small boobed dolls into the grey area.
3 Likes
I should have read the text of SB160, Florida’s doll law bill. The text does refer to an obscene CLD. The amusing part, as with the Tennessee doll law, is that it’s impossible for a doll to be found legally obscene.
The text of SB160 uses the word lewd but only refers to obscene CLD’s.
1 Like