4 ms·

OK, what about this? It’s also illegal to use a AI model to generate realistic child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home. > If freedom of express

OK, what about this? It’s also illegal to use a AI model to generate realistic child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home. > If freedom of expression protects the latter, why does it not protect the former too? It’s legal for me to achieve altered states via meditation; why is it illegal to use LSD? Arguably it shouldn’t be, but it is. It seems like methods matter, even when it comes to expression.

skissane 3y ago
> OK, what about this? It’s also illegal to use a AI model to generate realistic child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home. False in the US - in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court ruled that “virtual child pornography” is protected by the 1st Amendment. True in some other jurisdictions, including my own country (Australia). However, I think Australian laws on this topic go way too far - in Australia, people have been convicted of child pornography offences purely for publishing offensive remarks about child abuse victims. While I agree it is wrong to make such remarks, I think it is massive overkill to prosecute them as child pornography.
- defrost 3y ago
  > in Australia, people have been convicted of child pornography offences purely for publishing offensive remarks about child abuse victims. I'd love to see a cite to the Court case on this - while I don't doubt that you've heard this it does sound an awful lot like a Sky 'News' after Dark pearl clutching misrepresentation of an almost but not quite actual event.
  - skissane 3y ago
    I’m talking about this case - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-12/nicolaas-bester-sentenced-over-social-media-comments-child-abuse/7083524 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-12/nicolaas-bester-sente... I have no sympathy for the defendant, who is absolute scum of the earth. But, as a matter of principle, I don’t think it is right that posting an offensive Facebook comment is legally the same offence (“producing child exploitation material”) as filming heinous crimes against children. If they’d prosecuted him for harassment instead-he’s currently facing trial on harassment charges against the same victim-I’d have no objection.
    - defrost 3y ago
      I still would like to pull the transcript ... > A former teacher at a private girls school in Hobart will return to jail after describing a sexual relationship with a former student as "awesome" on social media. It's the after that does a lot of lifting there, but it's certainly not "because". The article specifically notes: > Nicolaas Ockert Bester, 63, has been sentenced to four months in jail for producing child exploitation material. and I have a certain suspicion that his comment attracted attention resulting in charges based on fresh unearthed and "off book" evidence - off book in the sense that it was discussed in Court but not made public due to small towns and personal details of those involved who may now still be under age. (ie. he's been at it again and that's not being reported to keep eyes from what is likely a small circle of potential victims) I'm not trying to pick a fight here but there's often an information gap in cases involving children here in Australia, in my opinion largely for very good reasons.
      - skissane 3y ago
        > and I have a certain suspicion that his comment attracted attention resulting in charges based on fresh unearthed and "off book" evidence Here's the appellate court decision, from his failed appeal – https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/tas/TASSC/2016/19.html https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/tas/TASSC/20... Unless the appeal court is suppressing the real story (an idea I find unbelievable), he was literally convicted of a child pornography offence on the basis of nothing more than making an offensive Facebook comment: > In late February 2015 the applicant was involved in an on-line Facebook discussion about a political issue... In the course of that exchange, the applicant posted the following comment: [I'll omit it, but you can find it quoted in the judgement, and the media appears to have filled in much or all of the "Offensive words omitted" part] > The writing of that message constituted the offence for which the learned magistrate sentenced the applicant to 4 months' imprisonment. By creating that message, he contravened s 72A(a) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act. That provision reads as follows: "A person must not — > (a) make or reproduce child exploitation material; or > The words that the applicant wrote constituted material that described his former student, a person under the age of 18 years, in relation to their sexual activity, in a way that a reasonable person would regard as being offensive. His comment therefore constituted "child exploitation material" as defined. This isn't what you call "Sky 'News' after Dark pearl clutching misrepresentation of an almost but not quite actual event" – it is literally what happened. And as I said, Bester is scum, but the principle of the matter is concerning. The law, as drafted by Parliament and interpreted by the Courts, seems rather over-broad. And while this case was about Tasmanian state law specifically, laws in other Australian jurisdictions are rather similar.

skissane 3y ago

> OK, what about this? It’s also illegal to use a AI model to generate realistic child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home. False in the US - in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court ruled that “virtual child pornography” is protected by the 1st Amendment. True in some other jurisdictions, including my own country (Australia). However, I think Australian laws on this topic go way too far - in Australia, people have been convicted of child pornography offences purely for publishing offensive remarks about child abuse victims. While I agree it is wrong to make such remarks, I think it is massive overkill to prosecute them as child pornography.

defrost 3y ago
> in Australia, people have been convicted of child pornography offences purely for publishing offensive remarks about child abuse victims. I'd love to see a cite to the Court case on this - while I don't doubt that you've heard this it does sound an awful lot like a Sky 'News' after Dark pearl clutching misrepresentation of an almost but not quite actual event.
- skissane 3y ago
  I’m talking about this case - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-12/nicolaas-bester-sentenced-over-social-media-comments-child-abuse/7083524 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-12/nicolaas-bester-sente... I have no sympathy for the defendant, who is absolute scum of the earth. But, as a matter of principle, I don’t think it is right that posting an offensive Facebook comment is legally the same offence (“producing child exploitation material”) as filming heinous crimes against children. If they’d prosecuted him for harassment instead-he’s currently facing trial on harassment charges against the same victim-I’d have no objection.
  - defrost 3y ago
    I still would like to pull the transcript ... > A former teacher at a private girls school in Hobart will return to jail after describing a sexual relationship with a former student as "awesome" on social media. It's the after that does a lot of lifting there, but it's certainly not "because". The article specifically notes: > Nicolaas Ockert Bester, 63, has been sentenced to four months in jail for producing child exploitation material. and I have a certain suspicion that his comment attracted attention resulting in charges based on fresh unearthed and "off book" evidence - off book in the sense that it was discussed in Court but not made public due to small towns and personal details of those involved who may now still be under age. (ie. he's been at it again and that's not being reported to keep eyes from what is likely a small circle of potential victims) I'm not trying to pick a fight here but there's often an information gap in cases involving children here in Australia, in my opinion largely for very good reasons.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > and I have a certain suspicion that his comment attracted attention resulting in charges based on fresh unearthed and "off book" evidence Here's the appellate court decision, from his failed appeal – https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/tas/TASSC/2016/19.html https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/tas/TASSC/20... Unless the appeal court is suppressing the real story (an idea I find unbelievable), he was literally convicted of a child pornography offence on the basis of nothing more than making an offensive Facebook comment: > In late February 2015 the applicant was involved in an on-line Facebook discussion about a political issue... In the course of that exchange, the applicant posted the following comment: [I'll omit it, but you can find it quoted in the judgement, and the media appears to have filled in much or all of the "Offensive words omitted" part] > The writing of that message constituted the offence for which the learned magistrate sentenced the applicant to 4 months' imprisonment. By creating that message, he contravened s 72A(a) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act. That provision reads as follows: "A person must not — > (a) make or reproduce child exploitation material; or > The words that the applicant wrote constituted material that described his former student, a person under the age of 18 years, in relation to their sexual activity, in a way that a reasonable person would regard as being offensive. His comment therefore constituted "child exploitation material" as defined. This isn't what you call "Sky 'News' after Dark pearl clutching misrepresentation of an almost but not quite actual event" – it is literally what happened. And as I said, Bester is scum, but the principle of the matter is concerning. The law, as drafted by Parliament and interpreted by the Courts, seems rather over-broad. And while this case was about Tasmanian state law specifically, laws in other Australian jurisdictions are rather similar.