I like that the article gives some numbers.
The article contains this. It appears that an evaluation of an attraction pattern determines whether a thing is a crime without regard for the agency to moderate or intent.
"His defence lawyer, Elizabeth Cooper, said child pornography charges were laid initially but were later dropped because of issues with how the search warrants related to the case were filed.
Cooper said she expects future cases will be ‘nebulous’ to convict because of the nuances of deciding what constitutes harmful imagery of a child and the severe criminal and personal punishment of child pornography charges.
‘It could be that they want a smaller-sized doll — or, it could be pedophiles that are ordering a child-like sex doll,’ she said. ‘It is quite difficult, because that’s the reality. You’re sending somebody, if they can be convicted, to jail over a piece of foam.’
The definition of child pornography is broad under the Criminal Code, she said, and lawyers will have to prove intent beyond the doll itself.
‘Of course, child pornography is repugnant to people, but the idea of sending somebody to jail because they have a doll, I think judges probably will have some difficulty with that,’ Cooper said."