PHOENIX — Arizona legislators move to make it illegal to sell or own sex dolls with real child faces as investigators warn that children’s photos have been removed from social media I’m here.
Detective Randall Snyder of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office told state senators that the use of children’s faces is a serious problem.
He said such puppets are available and not only on the “dark web” used by criminals and others trying to hide their activities, but “these puppets can be found on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Amazon, It’s been found on eBay and even Etsy.” Snyder told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“In some of these cases, these dolls can be modified to look like the child the predator wants, based on pictures they find on social media.” Your grandson based on the photo….”
People are also reading…
Reduced from First Amendment
The proposed bill is not as broad as it was first proposed by Rep. Selina Bliss and Rep. Quan Nguyen.
The original version of House Bill 2169, introduced by two Yavapai County Republicans, sought to make it a felony to purchase, transport, or possess a “child sex doll.”
The law defines “anatomically correct” dolls, robots, or mannequins having characteristics resembling infants or children under the age of 12 and “intended to be used for sexual stimulation or gratification.” ” is defined.
Members of Congress reconsidered when a court ruling indicated that the mere possession of such a doll, but no more, would fall under First Amendment protection.
The new version, which is awaiting a Senate roll call vote, maintains its essence, but with key differences. It is illegal only if the doll “uses the face, image, or likeness of an actual infant or minor under the age of 12.”
Snyder said the dolls were realistic and not something people could get as a blast or party favor, adding, “The dolls are designed to look like children and are meant to look like children. It’s designed to act like a child, and it’s designed to sound like a child.”
Pinal County Deputy Attorney Jim Hurd told lawmakers the move wasn’t meant to preempt problems. “We are already behind this issue,” he said.
Tucson Republican Senator Justin Wadsak said he was “surprised to hear about predator puppets that looked or resembled neighborhood kids, family kids, kids they saw or looked like.” Stated. young person. ”
A “gateway” for predators
Snyder said it’s not illegal under federal law because “there’s no real harm to real children,” especially if the images aren’t associated with real children.
However, in his experience, dolls become a “gateway” for people to start looking for their real children. It may be used for
Wadsak agreed. “Sex with a child sex doll is not 100% satisfying in that way, it’s a transition to an actual child,” she said.
She said it should be a warning to parents.
“When you put a picture of your child online, someone could steal the picture, make a doll in your child’s image, and have sex with your child’s image.
“Parents, be careful. We live in very dangerous times.”
Court decisions on protected speech
Arizona Criminal Justice Attorney Katherine Gipson McLean spoke to lawmakers about the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
“None of the actual children were harmed during production,” she said, the court found.
McLean said the judge rejected the argument that allowing such material would lead to criminal conduct.
R-Fountain Hills Senator John Kavanagh said he intends to appeal the ruling. But that’s not all, he said, and it’s clear that legal lines can be crossed if the doll bears the image of a real child.
“So now we’re not talking about a fictional non-existent person,” Kavanagh said.
McLean was unwilling to admit it was a big enough difference to legitimize the measure.
Bliss disagreed. “His 2002 Supreme Court ruling on digital art porn is indeed a First Amendment right to free speech,” Prescott Republican told lawmakers. “But folks, this is not digital art.”
The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and was opposed only by Democratic Phoenix Sen. Anna Hernandez.
“We have to keep our children safe,” Hernandez said. I suffer from ambiguity.
Even if the bill is fully approved by the Senate, it must be submitted to the House, which has yet to consider it.
There is an emergency clause
One issue is timing. As written, the bill contains emergency provisions that take effect immediately after the governor’s signature.
But the emergency clause requires approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate. If passed by a smaller margin, he wouldn’t go into effect until 90 days after parliament’s session ended, and at this rate he could mean after August.
That possibility worries Kavanagh.
“If you don’t get through the emergency measures, you basically get someone in Arizona who wants to buy these, or someone in Arizona who wants to sell them. Basically, give them six months to nine months. It will give you months to stock up before it becomes illegal,” he said.
D-Phoenix Rep. Christine Marsh said she wasn’t convinced that was the problem.
“It’s a property right, isn’t it?” she asked, referring to the language banning possession. She said that if the law were enforced, police would be able to enter a home and arrest a doll even if they found it problematic. said to mean
Kavanagh believes an emergency clause is needed to immediately stop the sale and advertising of such dolls.
This week, senators on both sides of the political divide announced legislation aimed at protecting children from aspects of social media that have been found to affect their mental health.
Howard Fischer is a veteran journalist who has been reporting since 1970 and has covered state politics and legislatures since 1982.
