5 ms·

Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial?

rudolph9 6y ago
There is enough demand that people not only pay lots of money but risk jail time to view these images. Repugnant or not, it’s a lot less repugnant than the underground crime circles that exploit and traffic real live human children. The demand is there regardless of how they get it, so it’s worth at least discussing if synthetic images would result in a reduction of real live children being involved in pornography and/or being trafficked.
nordsieck 6y ago
> Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial? I think your parent is asking the question: why is it repugnant? Is it repugnant because children were harmed in the manufacture of the images, or is it repugnant ipso facto? And if it is repugnant ipso facto, is that worth having a strict liability crime on the books, when no people are actually being harmed (in the case of fake child porn)? In other words, why should it be illegal to have fake porn of children, but not illegal to keep spiders as pets?
rbecker 6y ago
Is manufacturing such material more repugnant than allowing more children to get raped, because you find faking such images too repugnant? Lets try to put a number on it. How many children would you allow to be raped, to prevent someone from making or viewing fake child porn? Ten? A hundred? More? A commenter linked https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h..., in case you think this scenario is unlikely.
- buisi 6y ago
  There was a study in the Netherlands or Denmark which came to the conclusion that such people viewing this content or exercising their creativity in producing it can help to divert them from attacking children.
jhanschoo 6y ago
While it is repugnant, whether or not it is immoral is another matter. If it is immoral, it likely deserves being criminalized, whereas if it is not immoral, democratic liberal ideals suggest that the law should protect such manufacture from unjust censure instead. The case against filmed CP is straightforward: minors are harmed in the process. But what is being harmed in generated imagery? If nothing is harmed, what is the basis for it being immoral?
- smitty1e 6y ago
  Unintended consequences abound. Once Pandora's Box of deep fakes is open, are we going to permit racists to generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ? I mean, as long as only fake Elbonians are dying unspeakably, it's OK, no? Because the same people who just gotta have that stuff would never want to operationalize that ickniness, would they? How about just "no"?
  - TomMarius 6y ago
    Why is GTA OK, then? And what about Command & Conquer, or Mafia?
  - jhanschoo 6y ago
    Yet just "no" would be an immoral act itself, since it is discrimination against an act that is morally neutral. Let us leave aside the question of the morality of the act that you hypothesize we might eventually decide to commit, and assume it is immoral. (I phrase it this way since these "unintended consequences" don't follow as a matter of fact but require people to decide to perform them.) Even if we in future might end up deciding to commit an immoral act, that is no justification to continue committing the present immoral act.
    - smitty1e 6y ago
      I'm sincerely confused as to whether you're rejecting or embracing activities that could lead others astray.
  - 6y ago

There is enough demand that people not only pay lots of money but risk jail time to view these images. Repugnant or not, it’s a lot less repugnant than the underground crime circles that exploit and traffic real live human children. The demand is there regardless of how they get it, so it’s worth at least discussing if synthetic images would result in a reduction of real live children being involved in pornography and/or being trafficked.

nordsieck 6y ago

> Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial? I think your parent is asking the question: why is it repugnant? Is it repugnant because children were harmed in the manufacture of the images, or is it repugnant ipso facto? And if it is repugnant ipso facto, is that worth having a strict liability crime on the books, when no people are actually being harmed (in the case of fake child porn)? In other words, why should it be illegal to have fake porn of children, but not illegal to keep spiders as pets?

rbecker 6y ago

Is manufacturing such material more repugnant than allowing more children to get raped, because you find faking such images too repugnant? Lets try to put a number on it. How many children would you allow to be raped, to prevent someone from making or viewing fake child porn? Ten? A hundred? More? A commenter linked https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h..., in case you think this scenario is unlikely.

buisi 6y ago
There was a study in the Netherlands or Denmark which came to the conclusion that such people viewing this content or exercising their creativity in producing it can help to divert them from attacking children.

jhanschoo 6y ago

While it is repugnant, whether or not it is immoral is another matter. If it is immoral, it likely deserves being criminalized, whereas if it is not immoral, democratic liberal ideals suggest that the law should protect such manufacture from unjust censure instead. The case against filmed CP is straightforward: minors are harmed in the process. But what is being harmed in generated imagery? If nothing is harmed, what is the basis for it being immoral?

smitty1e 6y ago
Unintended consequences abound. Once Pandora's Box of deep fakes is open, are we going to permit racists to generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ? I mean, as long as only fake Elbonians are dying unspeakably, it's OK, no? Because the same people who just gotta have that stuff would never want to operationalize that ickniness, would they? How about just "no"?
- TomMarius 6y ago
  Why is GTA OK, then? And what about Command & Conquer, or Mafia?
- jhanschoo 6y ago
  Yet just "no" would be an immoral act itself, since it is discrimination against an act that is morally neutral. Let us leave aside the question of the morality of the act that you hypothesize we might eventually decide to commit, and assume it is immoral. (I phrase it this way since these "unintended consequences" don't follow as a matter of fact but require people to decide to perform them.) Even if we in future might end up deciding to commit an immoral act, that is no justification to continue committing the present immoral act.
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    I'm sincerely confused as to whether you're rejecting or embracing activities that could lead others astray.
- 6y ago