3 ms·

It’s very obviously not going to be a meaningful legal distinction in terms of possession nor should it be when you think about it for more than 5 seconds. It’

by mdhb 3y ago

It’s very obviously not going to be a meaningful legal distinction in terms of possession nor should it be when you think about it for more than 5 seconds. It’s only particularly relevant in the context of terms of trying to identify the source of abuse and trying to stop or interrupt that.

nordsieck 3y ago
> It’s very obviously not going to be a meaningful legal distinction in terms of possession nor should it be when you think about it for more than 5 seconds. I've thought about it for 5 seconds, and it's not obvious to me. The whole possession of images is a crime is already a stretch, justified by the very real observation that the market for these images necessarily fuels abuse of real children. But AI images cut that link. I'm in complete agreement that the content is odious. But there's plenty of stuff that's odious and legal.
- shaky-carrousel 3y ago
  It feels like making a crime of possessing fake ivory items.
- mdhb 3y ago
  Why the fuck anyone would log in to argue that possession of child porn is some kind of grey area that’s up for debate is beyond me but you’re certainly not alone in this thread that’s for sure.
  - smallmancontrov 3y ago
    It used to be about protecting the children. Now it's about thought crime. Once the link to protecting children is severed, the category of thought crime is free to expand without limit. Where does it end?
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > Why the fuck anyone would log in to argue that possession of child porn is some kind of grey area that’s up for debate is beyond me but you’re certainly not alone in this thread that’s for sure. 1. Some people think free speech is a pretty good idea. And it doesn't really mean much if you only defend speech that you agree with. 2. There's pretty widespread agreement that drug crimes are inhumane and should be replaced with treatment. So-called "victimless crimes". IMO, AI CP has the exact same characteristics, but it's even less damaging to society - there's no chance that someone will get into a car crash because they're "using". 3. Convictions here absolutely destroy lives. The consequence of being convicted for possession of CP is not just jail (where people absolutely do get attacked by other inmates, often times fatally), but also registry on the sexual offender list. Do people who indirectly hurt children deserve this fate - I guess, it's complicated. It does seem out of proportion to the punishments handed out to people who kill others with cars, for example. But I can certainly get on board with some sort of criminal consequences. But if the "offender" doesn't hurt anyone, even indirectly, that does seem like an absolute nuclear warhead of a punishment for something that most people would struggle to explain why it's a crime at all other than "it's gross".
    - mdhb 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - the_shivers 3y ago
        You asked.
      - piva00 3y ago
        As odious as the content is, curtailing it gets into a mess of legal grounds which the parent comment tried to explain why they believe so. I understand getting riled up because of the content's nature but you haven't improved the conversation by debating on what specific legal grounds this type of speech in the US should be curtailed by. There's no direct harm to a victim, if a film maker includes a scene of a CGI baby being raped (for whatever reason they do it, be it for shock value, storytelling, whatever) should that also lead to a prosecution? That's the point where finding a valid legal ground enters, just defining it by "I don't like it" is not a valid legal reason. I'm not American nor a free speech absolutist, much much less trying to defend people looking at CP, but you do need strong arguments on what basis to make laws against this.
gizmo686 3y ago
Under current US law, it is a very meaningful distinction. Possesing pictures of real child abuse. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) makes this distinction very clear. > The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited. With the current composition of the court, I'm not convinced this precedent will hold up if a case reaches them. But until that happens, the law seems quite clear.
- mminer237 3y ago
  That only applies to child pornography which is not "obscene" under the Miller standard. I doubt that affects the legal status of the images being discussed at all.

by mdhb 3y ago

nordsieck 3y ago

> It’s very obviously not going to be a meaningful legal distinction in terms of possession nor should it be when you think about it for more than 5 seconds. I've thought about it for 5 seconds, and it's not obvious to me. The whole possession of images is a crime is already a stretch, justified by the very real observation that the market for these images necessarily fuels abuse of real children. But AI images cut that link. I'm in complete agreement that the content is odious. But there's plenty of stuff that's odious and legal.

shaky-carrousel 3y ago
It feels like making a crime of possessing fake ivory items.
mdhb 3y ago
Why the fuck anyone would log in to argue that possession of child porn is some kind of grey area that’s up for debate is beyond me but you’re certainly not alone in this thread that’s for sure.
- smallmancontrov 3y ago
  It used to be about protecting the children. Now it's about thought crime. Once the link to protecting children is severed, the category of thought crime is free to expand without limit. Where does it end?
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > Why the fuck anyone would log in to argue that possession of child porn is some kind of grey area that’s up for debate is beyond me but you’re certainly not alone in this thread that’s for sure. 1. Some people think free speech is a pretty good idea. And it doesn't really mean much if you only defend speech that you agree with. 2. There's pretty widespread agreement that drug crimes are inhumane and should be replaced with treatment. So-called "victimless crimes". IMO, AI CP has the exact same characteristics, but it's even less damaging to society - there's no chance that someone will get into a car crash because they're "using". 3. Convictions here absolutely destroy lives. The consequence of being convicted for possession of CP is not just jail (where people absolutely do get attacked by other inmates, often times fatally), but also registry on the sexual offender list. Do people who indirectly hurt children deserve this fate - I guess, it's complicated. It does seem out of proportion to the punishments handed out to people who kill others with cars, for example. But I can certainly get on board with some sort of criminal consequences. But if the "offender" doesn't hurt anyone, even indirectly, that does seem like an absolute nuclear warhead of a punishment for something that most people would struggle to explain why it's a crime at all other than "it's gross".
  - mdhb 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - the_shivers 3y ago
      You asked.
    - piva00 3y ago
      As odious as the content is, curtailing it gets into a mess of legal grounds which the parent comment tried to explain why they believe so. I understand getting riled up because of the content's nature but you haven't improved the conversation by debating on what specific legal grounds this type of speech in the US should be curtailed by. There's no direct harm to a victim, if a film maker includes a scene of a CGI baby being raped (for whatever reason they do it, be it for shock value, storytelling, whatever) should that also lead to a prosecution? That's the point where finding a valid legal ground enters, just defining it by "I don't like it" is not a valid legal reason. I'm not American nor a free speech absolutist, much much less trying to defend people looking at CP, but you do need strong arguments on what basis to make laws against this.

gizmo686 3y ago

Under current US law, it is a very meaningful distinction. Possesing pictures of real child abuse. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) makes this distinction very clear. > The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited. With the current composition of the court, I'm not convinced this precedent will hold up if a case reaches them. But until that happens, the law seems quite clear.

mminer237 3y ago
That only applies to child pornography which is not "obscene" under the Miller standard. I doubt that affects the legal status of the images being discussed at all.