The original version of SB 2169, proposed by two Yavapai County Republican lawmakers, sought to make it a felony for anyone to purchase, transport, or possess what the law defines as a “child sex doll.” . This is an “anatomically correct” doll, robot, or mannequin that has the function of resuming an infant or child under the age of 12 and is “intended to be used for sexual stimulation or gratification.” ” is defined as

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. A doll is “illegal only if it uses the face, image, or likeness of an actual child or minor under the age of 12 years.”

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 others 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 action was introduced.

“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.” Perverts out there and looking like our kids because they could look like my kids, your kids or your grandchildren’s kids based on pictures posted on social media You can engage in simulated sexual behavior with a doll.

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, they are designed to sound like children. They are also anatomically correct.”

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.

“Children’s sex dolls — did you ever think you heard about that?” she said to a colleague.

She said predators need to deal with their urges.

“And they found this through dolls that imitated or looked like children in the neighborhood, children in the family, children they had seen, or children who looked like young people,” Wadsak said.

Snyder says it’s not illegal under federal law because “there’s no real harm to real children,” especially if the images can’t be linked to real children. may have a computer-generated face.

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

Snyder said that in his own experience, these dolls can be a “gateway” for people to start looking for real children. He said it can even be “groomed” to make you believe it is.

“Having sex with a child’s sex doll would 100% lead to them moving on to the actual child instead of being so satisfied,” she said.

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

“If 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.

“Be careful, parents,” 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, even those engaged in sexual activity, are prohibited. concluded that it was protected speech.

“No real children were harmed during production,” she said. McLean said the judge dismissed her argument that allowing such material would lead to criminal conduct.

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 fictional non-existent characters,” Kavanagh said. “We’re talking about digital images of real people.”

McLean was unwilling to admit it was a big enough difference to legitimize the measure.

“The 2002 Supreme Court ruling on digital art porn is indeed a First Amendment right to free speech,” she told lawmakers. “But this is not digital art.”

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and was opposed only by Democratic Phoenix Sen. Anna Hernandez.

“We need to keep our children safe,” she said. He said he wasn’t sure if he should.

“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 go through the emergency measures, you’re basically going to get someone who’s in Arizona who wants to buy these or who’s in Arizona who wants to sell them. Basically six to nine months of time. Stock up before it becomes illegal,” he said.

But D-Phoenix Rep. Christine Marsh said she wasn’t convinced that was the problem.

“Ownership, right?” she asked, noting the words prohibiting possession. She said that once the law is enforced, it means police officers can enter a home and arrest even one of the dolls in question.

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.