Guilty as charged.

Poor 👶 ..lol

G, are you his counsel?

Another victim

It was already settled when music was attempted to be censored ages ago and was told they had to mark the packaging with a warning label but could not be censored for the content therein.

I can see a time where this is content is still legal by court order and opinion but must be marked with a label as precedent sets from ages ago. That does not imply or mean I condone it, but based on legal basis…

It is called political cred to which they need more than enough of when it comes to elections. They will pass it unless told otherwise by the AG and the governor won’t sign it into law because they know it can and probably be challenged in the courts. Then it again, they all could let is slide to see how far it gets before it gets challenged and struck down as unconstitutional where the politicians can point fingers at others who did that while keeping the cred they want and need for elections saying they tried.

disgusting!!!!!!!

some friends you have????

Maybe they too will need to be banned as well, time will tell. But I get the gist of what you are saying though.

In some form or another, all states hold that a person is perfectly sane absent proof to the contrary. They also hold that standing alone, the commission of a crime is not evidence of mental illness.

I never have and never will understand the reasoning of how a criminal defendant is perfectly sane at the time of trial/plea hearing, yet insane enough to mandate mental health “treatment.” With drug abusers, “treatment” is incentivised in that sentences usually end up on “successful treatment” even though the vast majority of those offenders are usually right back in the system for new drug charges within a year (sometimes even days).

Not so with those convicted for sex crimes. “Treatment” is mandatory, completion will always coincide with the end of the sentence, and failure/refusal to participate for any reason (including inability to pay for such “service”) sends the individual right back to prison. Actual recidivism rates indicate that far more sex crime is the result of poor judgment, not some incurable mental illness that is presumed by the courts and public. Poor judgment is NOT mental illness.

I’ve never heard of anyone assaulting or robbing anyone else to support a porn, CP, or CSAM addiction. I’ve never heard of anyone committing an actual contact sex offense because he wasn’t getting the thrill he once got from porn, CP, or CSAM. While these addicts aren’t doing themselves any favors by indulging in these particular vices, they aren’t affecting the lives and well-being of anyone but themselves and their families. I can’t believe it would be any different with AI or animated versions.

That’s not to say that many convicted sex criminals don’t have mental health issues that require treatment of some kind. It’s only saying that mental illness should not be presumed merely because one was convicted for a sex crime, non-contact offenses in particular. I don’t think the anti-registry movement is served very well by conceding such misguided notions.

Many actions are and should be criminal. But thoughts and ideas are not and never should be, no matter how disturbing or objectionable. If they were, Stephen King, Quentin Tarantino, VC Andrews should be among the first convicted for thought crime.