PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers are moving to make it illegal to sell or possess sex dolls with the faces of real children, as investigators warn that children’s photos are being lifted from social media.
The use of children’s faces is a real problem, Detective Randall Snyder of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office told state senators.
He said such dolls are available, and not just on the “dark web’’ used by criminals and others seeking to hide their activity. “These dolls have been found on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Amazon, eBay and even Etsy,’’ Snyder told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“In some of these cases, these dolls can be modified based upon pictures found on social media to look exactly like the child the predator wants it to look like,’’ he said. “These dolls can look like my kids, your kids, your grandkids based upon pictures that are posted on social media ....”
Scaled back over First Amendment
The proposed legislation isn’t as broad as originally proposed by Reps. Selina Bliss and Quang Nguyen.
The original version of House Bill 2169 advanced by the two Yavapai County Republicans sought to make it a felony for anyone to buy, transport or possess a “child sex doll.’’
The legislation defined that as an “anatomically correct’’ doll, robot or mannequin with features resembling an infant or child younger than 12 and is “intended to be used for sexual stimulation or gratification.’’
Lawmakers had second thoughts when court rulings were pointed out to them that indicate the simple possession of such a doll, absent more, falls within First Amendment protections.
The new version awaiting a Senate roll-call vote keeps the essence but with a key distinction: It would only be illegal if the doll “uses the face, image or likeness of a real infant or minor who is under 12 years of age.’’
Snyder said the dolls are realistic and not just blowups or something people might get as a party favor, Snyder said: “They’re designed to look like a child, they’re designed to act like a child, they’re designed to sound like a child.”
Deputy Pinal County Attorney Jim Heard told lawmakers the measure isn’t an effort to get ahead of the issue. “We’re behind this problem already,’’ he said.
Sen. Justine Wadsack, R-Tucson, said she is alarmed to hear about dolls for predators that mimic or resemble “a child in their neighborhood, a child in their family, a child that they’ve seen, or just any child that resembles a young person.”
‘Gateway’ for predators
Snyder said that isn’t illegal under federal law because “there’s no actual harm to a real child,’’ particularly if the image cannot be linked to an actual child. Sometimes the dolls have more generic or computer-generated faces, he said.
But he said his experience is that the dolls become a “gateway’’ for people to start looking for real children. The dolls can be used by predators to “groom’’ children into believing certain acts are normal, he said.
Wadsack agreed. “Having sex with a child sex doll is going to lead 100% to them no longer getting satisfied in that way and moving on to actual children,’’ she said.
She said it should be a warning to parents.
“When you’re putting your photographs of your children online, there is the possibility that somebody is stealing that photograph and creating a doll in the image of your child and having sex with the image of your child,’’ she said.
“Be very careful, parents,’’ Wadsack said. “We live in very dangerous times.’’
Court ruling on protected speech
Katherine Gipson McLean, a lawyer with Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, told lawmakers about a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that virtual or artificial depictions of children, including showing them engaged in sexual conduct, was protected speech.
“No actual children were harmed in the production,’’ she said the court found.
McLean said the justices rejected arguments that allowing that type of material would lead to criminal behavior.
Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said he is willing to challenge that ruling. But short of that, he said it’s clear the legal line gets crossed when a doll has the image of a real child.
“So now, we’re not talking about a made-up, non-existent person,’’ Kavanagh said. “We’re talking about an actual real person digital image.’’
McLean was unwilling to concede that would be enough difference to make the measure legal.
Bliss disagreed. “That 2002 Supreme Court decision on digital art porn is indeed a First Amendment right of free speech,’’ the Prescott Republican told lawmakers. “But this, folks, is not digital art.’’
The measure cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee with only Sen. Anna Hernandez, D-Phoenix, in opposition.
“We do need to keep our kids safe,’’ Hernandez said. But she said she’s not sure laws aimed at dolls protect actual children, and that the bill’s language suffers from “vagueness.’’
If the measure gains full Senate approval, it still needs to go to the House, which has not yet considered it.
Emergency clause included
One issue is timing. As written, the bill contains an emergency clause that would make it effective immediately upon the governor’s signature.
But the emergency clause requires approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate. If it passes with a lesser margin, it would not take effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends, which at this rate could mean August or later.
That possibility bothers Kavanagh.
“If you don’t pass the emergency measure, you’ll basically be getting people who wish to purchase these who are in Arizona, or sell them who are in Arizona, you would essentially be giving them six months to nine months of time to stock up before it’s illegal,’’ he said.
Rep. Christine Marsh, D-Phoenix, said she’s not convinced that’s a problem.
“It’s ownership, right?’’ she asked, noting the language banning possession. She said that would mean a police officer entering a home and finding an offending doll once the law took effect could still make an arrest.
Kavanagh said he remains convinced an emergency clause is necessary to put an immediate stop to the sale and advertising of such dolls.
This week, senators from both sides of the political divide announced legislation aimed at protecting children from aspects of social media found to impact mental health.
