Howard Fisher
Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — An Arizona senator is considering legislation to prevent photos of his children from appearing on sex dolls purchased by neighbors.

But not as widely as Selina Bliss and Quan Nguyen first proposed.

The original version of HB 2169, advanced by two Yavapai County Republicans, sought to make it a felony for anyone to purchase, transport, or possess what the law defines as a “child sex doll.” . This is defined as “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.”

However, lawmakers reconsidered when pointed out that there were court rulings indicating simple possession of such dolls.

The new version, which is awaiting a Senate roll call vote, maintains the essence of the original proposal, but with important differences. Dolls are “illegal only if they use the face, image or likeness of an actual infant or minor. Age 12.”

According to Pinal County Sheriff’s Office Detective Randall Snyder, it’s a real problem.

He said the dolls are available not only on the “dark web” used by criminals and those trying to cover up their activities.

“These dolls have been found on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Amazon, eBay, and even Etsy,” Snyder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the measures were introduced. I was.

“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.” Make your grandchildren based on photos and allow perverts to get out there and engage in simulated sexual behavior with dolls that look like our children.

And Snyder said these dolls are realistic, not explosions or things people might get as party favors.

“They are designed to look like children, they are designed to act like children, and they are designed to sound like children.

Pinal County Deputy Attorney Jim Hurd told lawmakers that this was not an effort to get ahead of the problem.

“We are already behind this issue,” he said.

Senator Justin Wadsak, all that surprised R-Tucson.

“Have you ever thought of hearing such a story about a child’s sex doll?” she told a colleague.

She said predators need to deal with their urges.

“And they discovered this through dolls that imitate or resemble children in the neighborhood, children in the family, children they have seen, or children who resemble young people.

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. These dolls also have more generic faces and even computer-generated faces.

But he said it’s no easy feat for an adult to have sex with a doll that looks like a child.

Snyder said in his own experience these dolls can be a “gateway” for people to start looking for their real children, and predators also use the dolls to “groom” the children. , said it can even make people believe that certain behaviors are normal.

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.

And the fact that this is actually happening should be a warning to parents, Wadsack said.

“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, please be careful,” Wadsak continued. “We live in very dangerous times.”

The key to legalizing the bill is whether the image is of the actual child.

Arizona Criminal Justice Attorney Katherine Gipson McLean, citing a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, states that virtual or artificial depictions of children engaged in sexual activity are prohibited in protected speech. I concluded that there is

“No children were actually harmed during production,” she said.And McLean said the judge rejected the argument that allowing that kind of material would amount to criminal activity.

R-Fountain Hills Senator John Kavanagh said he intends to challenge the ruling. But aside from that, he said it’s clear that the legal line is crossed if the doll has 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.

“The 2002 Supreme Court ruling on digital art pornography is indeed a First Amendment right to free speech. But 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,” she said.

“That’s not what keeps them safe,” she said, adding that HB 2169’s words suffer from “ambiguity.”

Even if a bill is fully approved by the Senate, it must be presented to the House of Representatives, which has never considered it.

There is one more problem. It’s timing.

As crafted, HB 2169 contains an emergency clause that becomes effective upon the governor’s signature.

But it first needs approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate. If passed by a smaller margin, he wouldn’t be effective until 90 days after the session ended, and at this rate he could mean August or later.

That possibility haunted 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.

But 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 prohibiting possession. He said it meant he could be arrested.

However, Kavanagh said he believes an emergency clause is needed to end the sale and advertising of these dolls.

“If you want it to stop ASAP, there’s an emergency clause,” he said.

—-

Twitter: @azcapmedia