4 ms·

Why on earth would completely fictional images even be considered CSAM? There isn't even a child involved.

• echelon 3y ago
  Thoughtcrime. It's an extremely slippery slope. The scope of legally permissible discourse will likely only decrease from here.
• ryaniscool 3y ago
  That is not unreasonable thinking but the government doesn't agree with you. See 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(c). NONREQUIRED ELEMENT OF OFFENSE.-It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist That section of the US code covers obscene visual depictions of minors. Different from actual child porn but punishable with the same statutory minimums/maximums. I could only find a handful of (publicized) actual prosecutions that used that law. Here is a notable one: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-man-sentenced-40-years-prison-running-child-obscenity-website https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-man-sentenced-40-years-... In that case, he was obviously a sick person and running a commercial enterprise that catered to pedophiles but none of his material involved actual children. They were short stories and cartoons. He appealed and lost. Another one where a registered sex offender downloaded some hentai. He was sentenced to 20 years and also lost on appeal: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/06-4288/064288.p-2011-03-15.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/06...
  • eppp 3y ago
    I know these laws exist. I have no idea how they are constitutional but the supreme court has decided that they are. I have to then wonder if instead of a child's head they use the head of a frog and a childs body in the depiction. Is that still against the law? What if it is the body of a frog and the head of a child? Thats why these laws are ridiculous. There is no line that makes any sense.
    • cyanydeez 3y ago
      the American justice system is mostly reactive, so you're gonna need to generate and publish that your selfm perhaps some kind of AIleaks. com