3 ms·

Nah; you'll probably go about it by publishing very realistic AI generated copies so your actions are still legal.

skissane 3y ago
> Nah; you'll probably go about it by publishing very realistic AI generated copies so your actions are still legal. In many jurisdictions worldwide, producing/distributing/possessing "very realistic AI generated" child pornography is a crime. According to Wikipedia, [0] it is criminal in these jurisdictions: Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom. Furthermore, Wikipedia says it is in somewhat of a legal grey area in Argentina, Austria, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. Regarding the US in particular: the Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition [1] that the child pornography exception to the First Amendment does not include "virtual child pornography", so long as it does not involve images of real children (i.e. using AI to take a non-pornographic image of a real child and turning it into a pornographic image of that child). However, while this bars prosecuting AI-generated child pornography under child pornography laws, it does not bar prosecuting it under obscenity laws. In the US, obscenity laws are much narrower than child pornography laws, so it is more difficult to get convictions, but people have gone to prison for violating them (e.g. Ira Isaacs [2] in 2012/2013, Paul F Little aka Max Hardcore [3] in 2008/2009). It can be difficult to convince a jury to convict, but realistic AI-generated child pornography may be one of those cases in which many juries would. Furthermore, Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition is not set in stone–given technological developments since then, and the changed composition of the Supreme Court, it is possible that some prosecutor might seek to overturn it, and you can't say for certain they would fail. Given all this, I think Wikipedia is right to say it is a "legal grey area" in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs#Further_charges,_retrial_and_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs#Further_charges,_re... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#2005_arrest_and_prison_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#2005_arrest_and_p...
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  I mean I know a lot of the West are big on thought crimes. Hell people in the UK get arrested for being too mean in tweets now a-days. I don't think that's going to happen here though.

> Nah; you'll probably go about it by publishing very realistic AI generated copies so your actions are still legal. In many jurisdictions worldwide, producing/distributing/possessing "very realistic AI generated" child pornography is a crime. According to Wikipedia, [0] it is criminal in these jurisdictions: Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom. Furthermore, Wikipedia says it is in somewhat of a legal grey area in Argentina, Austria, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. Regarding the US in particular: the Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition [1] that the child pornography exception to the First Amendment does not include "virtual child pornography", so long as it does not involve images of real children (i.e. using AI to take a non-pornographic image of a real child and turning it into a pornographic image of that child). However, while this bars prosecuting AI-generated child pornography under child pornography laws, it does not bar prosecuting it under obscenity laws. In the US, obscenity laws are much narrower than child pornography laws, so it is more difficult to get convictions, but people have gone to prison for violating them (e.g. Ira Isaacs [2] in 2012/2013, Paul F Little aka Max Hardcore [3] in 2008/2009). It can be difficult to convince a jury to convict, but realistic AI-generated child pornography may be one of those cases in which many juries would. Furthermore, Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition is not set in stone–given technological developments since then, and the changed composition of the Supreme Court, it is possible that some prosecutor might seek to overturn it, and you can't say for certain they would fail. Given all this, I think Wikipedia is right to say it is a "legal grey area" in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs#Further_charges,_retrial_and_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs#Further_charges,_re... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#2005_arrest_and_prison_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#2005_arrest_and_p...

tick_tock_tick 3y ago
I mean I know a lot of the West are big on thought crimes. Hell people in the UK get arrested for being too mean in tweets now a-days. I don't think that's going to happen here though.