OC
@oc1oc3
Followers
351
Following
464
Media
36
Statuses
9,023
Punishment for not pretending that a doll is precious cannot be justified.
Georgia, USA
Joined July 2017
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
無料クーポン
• 499581 Tweets
増量作戦
• 281823 Tweets
Alexandre de Moraes
• 192958 Tweets
#ファミマ増量クランチ
• 86127 Tweets
Maradona
• 81223 Tweets
MAGIC TIME W CHARLOTTE14
• 76840 Tweets
岸田首相
• 52107 Tweets
Xandão
• 50496 Tweets
LISA FEAT ROSALÍA
• 37119 Tweets
Home Depot
• 27499 Tweets
岸田総理
• 27001 Tweets
#WWENXT
• 24877 Tweets
自民党総裁選
• 24467 Tweets
Fábio
• 24266 Tweets
花秘める君のメテオール
• 23479 Tweets
#EstrelaDaCasa
• 21524 Tweets
Bernard
• 18580 Tweets
総裁選不出馬の意向
• 16727 Tweets
Pedro Raul
• 16721 Tweets
Reinaldo
• 14976 Tweets
共同通信
• 13673 Tweets
NuNew Song Interview
• 13199 Tweets
政権幹部
• 12796 Tweets
Ganso
• 12616 Tweets
岸田さん
• 12541 Tweets
首相退任
• 10415 Tweets
Pinned Tweet
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The test for incitement is the imminent lawless action test.
This entirely precludes designating any expression that shows no intent as incitement.
1
0
7
@PostingLoliconL
For something to be proscribed as an expression of incitement, it must be shown to satisfy the imminent lawless action test.
Cartoon viewing and doll ownership don't even express intent.
See Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
3
2
98
@rubberducky1161
@AnzuFutabaD
@ManEldrich
@crpt0dgn
@greentexts_bot
It's not evil to think that what happens to a doll doesn't matter. There's no evil to punish for.
0
0
17
@nastynardo1
@1wescoast1
@TheMassageGirl_
@isaifisonu
@JoeBiden
Folks who take loans choose to take the loans.
2
0
16
That's huge.
10. Why is the FBI specifically raiding a corporate landlord that uses RealPage in Atlanta? The agency is not commenting, but a class-action lawsuit revealed that landlords who use RealPage control a large number of properties in the Atlanta area.
Here's a map of the RealPage
31
694
3K
0
0
0
To the extent that it would be found odd for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a nondescript sex toy, punishment for what someone does to a doll cannot be justified.
There’s a limit to what matters. Dolls do not matter more than a nondescript sex toy.
1
0
11
@PostingLoliconL
Texas v. Johnson (1989).
"The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable[.]"
1
0
9
@ApologeticAnti1
The doll posted is an older Sanhui 145cm. This particular model isn't even seized in countries that seize some dolls.
2
2
9
@lancelout
@CiabanItReal
@OliverJia1014
It's never morally relevant for one to feel more protective of an imaginary character than of a circle. Most would find it odd for one to feel protective of an imaginary character.
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
0
6
Activists attack dolls and fictional content, declaring that the content promotes or features inappropriate conduct between people. Fiction that is promoted as fiction does not promote reality. Promoting dolls does not promote conduct between people at all.
1
2
8
@PostingLoliconL
Consequently, dolls actually depict exotic reptiles that roam on the imaginary planet Ong.
I'm unsure why anyone should feel protective of reptiles that roam on the imaginary planet Ong.
0
0
6
Comparing fantasy with behavior is akin to comparing a roller coaster ride with a drive to the store.
Caution: Sexual fantasy and sexual behavior are not the same. People are responsible for what they *do* and how, but people don't ask for what arouses them.
Those of us who can act out (some of) our fantasies are lucky. Nothing is gained by rejecting instead of guiding the rest.
4
6
36
1
0
4
@red_devil330
You might like this.
Is there a link between animated pornography and sexual exploitation of children? Maybe - but there's no evidence that such material causes such behavior - instead, it appears to reflect pre-existing dispositions.
7
11
25
1
0
5
To sum it up, doll laws punish for choosing to do no harm, show a complete disregard for the harm principle and render the precious no more protected than a lifeless object from a risk of punishment perspective.
1
1
6
In places that punish for a harmless act and a harmful act, the purchaser demonstrated a preference for the punishable harmless act to the punishable harmful act. Strangely, many still condemn those who chose to be harmless.
It is "reasonable to assume that interaction with child sex dolls could increase the likelihood of child sexual abuse by desensitising the user to the physical, emotional and psychological harm caused by child sexual abuse and normalising the behaviour in the mind of the abuser."
3
5
11
2
2
5
Some think this is about demands.
It's not about demands; it's about unjustifiable punishment.
One doesn't need to be a sympathizer to find unjustified punishment revolting.
All should feel insulted by the notion that they could be punished for buying a doll.
1
0
5
@imaraddragon
@PostingLoliconL
Are you unaware of the Supremacy clause? Are you unaware that courts in the US adhere to vertical stare decisis?
1
0
4
Proscribing dolls proscribes expressing the ideas that sympathetic magic has no effects, that what happens to a doll doesn't matter and that it's never morally relevant for anyone to feel more protective of any doll than of a nondescript sex toy.
1
0
5
What about treaties? Does that matter?
"Under both U.S. and Australian law, online platforms have obligations to assist law enforcement, and in Australia, the communications regulator even possesses the power to compel providers to provide access to encrypted communications."
0
1
1
1
0
1
One doesn't need to be a sympathizer of doll ownership to sympathize with the sanctity of privacy. One doesn't need to be a sympathizer to find unjustified punishment revolting.
2
0
5
Applying age of consent laws to the shape of lifeless structures is tethered to sympathetic magic.
Doll owners don’t seek to throw parades or intrude on others. They just seek to be left alone. Attacks on doll ownership are intrusions on private conduct.
1
0
5
What someone does to a doll falls into the category of things that do not matter.
1
0
4
For the US, you only need to point out how someone's framing of incitement fails to satisfy the imminent lawless action test. The gateway, normalize, desensitize, stepping stone nonsense that doesn't even include intent cannot satisfy the test for incitement.
1
0
4
If all enforcement apparatuses get removed, who enforces anything?
0
0
1
@CoralieAlison
It doesn't make sense to criminalize a harmless activity and a harmful activity when doing so means the risk of punishment for doing either becomes indistinguishable.
1
0
3
@KousakaMya
@DrGTenbergen
Folks need to learn that these fictional images depict exotic insects that roam on the imaginary planet Ong. Resemblance is coincidental, regardless of what they are called.
0
0
3
Expression not unprotected by an exception clause is protected by the 1A guarantee of protection.
1
0
3
@KousakaMya
Those are good excerpts.
Morality is tethered to what one believes.
One can fantasize being a fire breathing dragon and not believe it is so. Fantasy is not tethered to what one believes.
1
0
2
No one has ever suffered from what someone did to a lifeless object in private.
1
0
4
Texas v. Johnson (1989).
"The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable[.]"
1
0
3
An attraction is an unconditioned response to an unconditioned stimulus. Liking the smell of baking bread is the same thing. One can walk into a market, smell baking bread but have no desire to eat bread. No one can help whether they like a scent.
@WitchyRadFem
@pill_swallow
@uniquealien8
@Laura_Danger
It is an error to confuse attraction to children with "desire to sexually abuse children."
5
0
2
0
0
4
It's not an evil fantasy to think that what someone does to a lifeless object in private cannot harm anyone and that what someone does in private is no one's concern.
1
0
4
Including doll ownership in discussions about how taboo limits and boundaries have been influenced doesn't make sense.
Doll ownership is about an activity that's conducted within the confines of solitude and not about social boundaries anymore than undressing to shower is.
1
0
4
@hebrewbee74
There are no discussions about providing sex dolls for anyone.
Some introduced bills to proscribe. Everyone voted for the bills because no one wants to be the target of a smear campaign.
1
1
4
@KousakaMya
@MioHondaFan
No one who doesn't have an attraction pattern develops it. That's like claiming one can control whether one likes the smell of baking bread.
1
0
3
@DailyTrafficK
The vast majority of doll owners would find the abusive acts appalling. Dolls owners cannot stop bad actors from buying dolls--or icecream, for all that matters--anymore than anyone else can. Punishment for thinking that what happens to a doll doesn't matter is unjustifiable.
1
0
2
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974).
"[N]udity alone does not render material obscene under Miller's standards."
1
0
3
2008 view and one like show at the time of this post. No one really cares about dolls or feels alarmed by someone who doesn't pretend that a doll is precious.
Former Halifax sailor gets probation for smuggling child sex dolls
2
2
2
0
0
0
@TunaSafeDolphin
@DrDavidLey
The first article linked to provides a discussion on that topic.
I'm sure this is interesting, but I wouldn't count on it for coverage of the emergent empirical literature based on the advertising. We find no evidence for a link between dolls and sexual aggression. See:
3
4
10
1
0
3
The gateway framing of incitement is legally impotent. The test for incitement is the imminent lawless action test.
Also, they cannot be banned as offensive or because society doesn't like them.
Texas v. Johnson (1989).
0
0
3
@CraigHarper19
What's remarkable is how that claim takes a detour in order to condemn folks for thinking that what happens to a doll doesn't matter and dismisses the idea that one will no sooner confuse a doll for a person than expect for a doll to eat breakfast.
I'll stop.
0
0
3
When one purchases a doll where doing so is punished for as though it were a harmful act, the purchaser shows a preference for the harmless punishable act to the harmful punishable act and a preference for the doll. Punishing, then, is punishing one for choosing be harmless.
1
0
2
@Normalillusions
@segashrak
@JustSom19934399
@HerbalHag
@Zaddonoe
@hunneyYumyum
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) (Fiction is protected.)
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) (Dolls cannot be found obscene.)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) (Doll ownership cannot be banned as incitement.)
1
0
3
Anime presents
6
40
259
1
0
3
Also, the assumption of what one imagines is another issue. One could think the doll depicts shapeshifting alien plant life or that it comes from a universe where aging is cyclic. Maybe, one could just think the doll is a doll.
1
0
3
I don't think anyone goes to war so pearl clutchers can demean them for doing something harmless.
1
0
3
To the extent that it would be found odd for one to feel more protective of any doll than of a broom, punishment for failing to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom cannot be justified.
1
0
3
It's fun seeing that many know this.
@LittleMuddyRed2
@SpiceyRenfro
@glennkirschner2
Imminent is the key word. Unprotected free speech must meet two requirements.
1The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
0
0
2
0
0
3
@KousakaMya
It competes. Calling generated images CSAM shows adherence to sympathetic magic. To the extent that shape isn't what makes the precious precious, shape doesn't make drawings or other structures precious either.
0
0
3
@KousakaMya
@clvrkill
To the extent that shape isn't what makes the precious precious, shape doesn't make cartoons or dolls precious either.
Applying age of consent laws to the shape of lifeless structures is tethered to sympathetic magic.
0
0
3
48 likes with 3700 views. It doesn't appear that many care about what doll someone has or about how someone handles a doll.
If it cannot be deemed evil for anyone to think that what happens to a doll doesn't matter, punishment for how someone handles a doll cannot be justified.
Kentucky State Senator Karen Berg (background) tries to rebrand pedophiles as "minor attracted persons" and says that child sex dolls is great to give to pedophiles ...because that's supposed to help. As opposed to criminalize it, shame it, and castrating child sex offenders.
79
48
70
0
0
3
Therefore, the claim that fictional content promotes inappropriate conduct makes no more sense than declaring undressing to shower promotes undressing to ride a bus.
1
0
3
A real man doesn't let others make up his mind. That statement is irrelevant.
0
0
1
@scarlett4kids
@AZJen
That story is a hoax. The stock photo of the doll is years older than the image of a person. No seller in China is looking on social media for ideas.
0
0
2
@leionthemage
@PostingLoliconL
Some may find it odd that Jenkins v. Georgia (1973) prevents dolls from being found obscene.
"[N]udity alone does not render material obscene under Miller's standards."
1
0
2
Watching
Third grade teacher & anime fan
@dosontherorikon
regularly posts anime porn depicting minors known as “loli.” He also routinely comments on whether the minor anime characters make him hard or if he would fuck them.
@elonmusk
@TwitterSupport
this is disgusting & must be removed.
217
35
278
0
0
1
@KousakaMya
@GHollow94
@DrGTenbergen
@Zosogis
@c_jordanclark
@Laura_Danger
Virtual harm and fictional harm are nonsensical terms. Surely, punishment should be as fictional as the crime.
0
0
1
Unjustifiable punishment is cruel and unusual punishment. Punishment for what someone does in private to the same lifeless object one could hand to a dog as a chew toy or use to wipe mud off the shoes is cruel and unusual punishment.
1
0
3
@leionthemage
@PostingLoliconL
The obscenity doctrine does indeed collide with Brandenburg v. Ohio and with Texas v. Johnson.
2
0
2
@anyasenya76346
@ChickenD0116V7
She's playing the melody for lawmakers cannot ban me. It starts with there is no exception clause to 1A protection that permits it.
Cute!
0
0
3
@KousakaMya
Comparing fiction with reality or dolls with people is akin to comparing undressing to shower with undressing to ride a bus. The context matters.
1
0
2
Not mentioned is the potential for animated material to be used instead of non-fictional material, reducing any reliance for subjects. Few, if any, will choose illegal material when legal material suffices. The objective is to disincentive production that is tethered to harm.
AI generated child sex images: a "nightmare" "worst case scenario" for trust and safety? I argue otherwise: we already have the tools to address this challenge, and premature regulation could harm marginalised communities and children alike. Read why:🧵
1
2
6
0
0
2
You don't appear to understand that to the extent that it would be found odd for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom, punishment for what someone does to a doll cannot be justified.
All people deserve to live and love free from sexual abuse and exploitation.
0
9
30
0
0
3
I think few would welcome a striking down of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) which describes the incitement clause and the imminent lawless action test that plays a part in why some expressions cannot be proscribed. There is no "it may eventually lead to harm" 1A exception clause.
1
0
3
A doll lying flat in a box isn't a picture and isn't a depiction of hard core conduct.
How does protecting something one can hand to a dog as a chew toy protect anyone?
1
0
2
One can fantasize being a fire-breathing dragon and not believe it is so.
Morality is tethered to what one believes. Fantasy is not tethered to what one believes.
0
0
1
@KousakaMya
No activity that's conducted within the confines of solitude can breach social boundaries.
0
0
1
@thebravobimbo
@VGVulpine
@TransmascFox
@ProfictionPuppy
@HarrietDymond
Attraction and willingness to rape are completely different constructs.
0
0
3
@conservmillen
@ejdickson
Why not ask an expert?
Just published in The Journal of Sex Research:
"The Self-Reported Sexual Real-World Consequences of Sex Doll Use"
"It is a growing concern that the use of sex dolls and robots could affect human sexuality.
1/7
3
13
26
1
0
3
@KousakaMya
Why a high risk person who's willing to offend would bother risking being punished for buying a doll where buying a doll is punished for eludes me when the precious are not viewed as more protected than a doll from a risk of punishment perspective.
1
1
3
Attacks on doll ownership are emanated from hostility. Activists use unfounded media effect nonsense to pry into affairs no one has business prying into. Doll ownership is no more about social boundaries than undressing to shower is.
You can't rape a robot you grievance-mongering whackos
79
199
605
3
0
3
To the extent that such is about the government's power to censor and regulate, it is indeed political.
Throughout the brief, and the PR campaign accompanying it, Schroder argues that sexual speech is not political speech, and not protected. But then, as always, they end up proving their own point by calling us all inverts and un-godly.
2
2
16
1
0
3
All should be the supreme creator and regulator of their own fantasies in a fashion that is not tethered more to reality than they choose. Fantasy offers an asylum from reality, not the constraints of it.
1
0
3