4 ms·

> I assume the answer to that will be that there is no need to differentiate between them. And honestly, I agree with that argument. Why do you believe that?

• chatmasta 3y ago
  See my comment to a sibling reply. Basically I don't want to make victims prove their victimization was real, and I don't want to give criminals with real victims an opportunity to argue they "thought it was AI generated."
  • usrnm 3y ago
    And I absolutely want both parties to have to prove crime/innocence and have an opportunity to argue. The current situation, where anything involving CSAM is so toxic that lives are ruined without trial is not healthy and isn't good for anybody
    • Hizonner 3y ago
      Point of order: victims are not "parties" in criminal cases, not in remotely modern legal systems. The parties are the accused and the state. For the same reason, victims don't get to pardon crimes committed against them. ... which is the way it should be, because criminal punishment should not be seen as a form of revenge, but as a deterrent.
      • qingcharles 3y ago
        Right. Most crimes are essentially ones that "the people" found unsavory. For instance, there is no "victim" if I got caught enjoying cannabis in my own home in a jurisdiction where such a thing is illegal, but "the people" have made a decision that they don't like it and I should be punished for committing an anti-social act. That is one of the fundamental aspects of democracy at work.