There are those who seek to crush anything they personally don’t like, regardless of the constitutionality of such an act. Nanny-staters like this use their own values as the moral compass with which to try to direct the fate of our nation.
A prime example: a law professor wants to regulate the “sexbot” industry because he thinks it may lead to bad things. From The College Fix:
John Banzhaf, a well-known activist professor of public interest law at George Washington University Law School, says experts disagree on the consequences of allowing people to engage in mock acts of rape with humanoid dolls, and lawmakers should vet this issue as soon as possible.
Saying there’s evidence rape sexbots may significantly increase the chance of rape to real women, the law should “no longer stand by and blindly ignore a major potential problem by doing nothing,” he said in an email to The College Fix.
Sexbots, especially those which can be programmed to act as if they are being raped, and those which act and appear to be young children, are already here and in use, Banzhaf said.
“The obvious first step would be to have hearings and do studies to determine just how serious the threat is, whether there are any real benefits to having sexbots programmed to simulate being raped, and then what if any new laws, regulations, etc. might be appropriate,” he said.
Banzhaf, in his email to The College Fix, acknowledged not all experts agree on the impact of the growing sexbots craze, and some have suggested sexbots programmed to act as if they are being raped might even help to reduce rape by permitting men with such inclinations to act out their fantasy desires in non-harmful ways.
He acknowledges that there’s no consensus on the effects of these acts on sexbots and their relationship with the real world — but he’s ready to throw millions of taxpayer dollars into investigating it.
However, there’s a problem. If a sexbot programmed to replicate being raped can lead to actual rape, then what about consenting adults who enjoy role-playing being raped? Wouldn’t the exact same act, only with a live person, be more of a hazard? After all, it’s a lot closer to real rape, right?
If the endgame is possibly to restrict what a person can do with a consenting robot, then first the law needs to restrict consenting adults acting out a rape fantasy. That sounds obviously unconstitutional because it is.
I have a thought. It’s kind of radical, but hear me out.
Rather than investigate if people “raping” robots are rapists in the making, why don’t we … oh, I don’t know … target real rapists?
The idea of regulating liberty because a handful of people may do something bad matches the arguments for gun control and the restriction of “hate” speech. Folks, you can’t invent new crimes. Infringing liberty is an actual crime.