4 ms·

Oh, I think it was too lenient. Ir to be honest, it's less about leniency and more about redressing the injurt to the victims of the "harassment". I don't think

Oh, I think it was too lenient. Ir to be honest, it's less about leniency and more about redressing the injurt to the victims of the "harassment". I don't think it's fair to expect the girls to continue going to school with those boys as if nothing happened after 2 weeks, and the offense is such that I think you can make the argument that expulsion or some other major punishment isn't "way too harsh". So all in all, in the interests of the victims and as a means of setting out a clear message that those kinds of things won't be tolerated, I believe it would have been best to expel the students in question, even though it's most likely a case of teenage boys not properly thinking through the impact and consequences of their actions.

bodiekane 3y ago
It's far too extreme in my view. No one was actually harmed by someone creating art. If someone writes a fictional story where a classmate is a character, or they draw a cartoon, or they paint an oil painting or they use a computer to make digital art, that all has to fall under freedom of expression or we're not really a free country anymore. Now, if they were trying to fraudulently pass the creations off as real- if they made an image that looked like it was taken by a security camera and said "This is real, I caught person X doing <whatever> and here's the security camera proof" then sure, that's fraud. Or plausibly, the images could have been used in a way which was harassment- if someone glued the picture to a student's locker to try to embarrass or annoy them or whatever, sure then that act is harassment. But all this panic and pearl-clutching over AI generated images is silly. In 5 years there will be AI-nudes of everyone and we'll all collectively shrug it off and go about our days and laugh at the luddite prudes of yesteryear.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
  I don't believe that's true. If the boys had drawn pornographic, photorealistic pictures of the girls in question, and distributed them, it would be a serious matter. You have to actually reckon with these difficult questions instead of just brushing them aside. Why is it an act of harassment to put them up if it's not am act of harassment to produce and distribute them? I also don't agree with your final assertion at all, I think we're in for a world of hurt here.

bodiekane 3y ago

It's far too extreme in my view. No one was actually harmed by someone creating art. If someone writes a fictional story where a classmate is a character, or they draw a cartoon, or they paint an oil painting or they use a computer to make digital art, that all has to fall under freedom of expression or we're not really a free country anymore. Now, if they were trying to fraudulently pass the creations off as real- if they made an image that looked like it was taken by a security camera and said "This is real, I caught person X doing <whatever> and here's the security camera proof" then sure, that's fraud. Or plausibly, the images could have been used in a way which was harassment- if someone glued the picture to a student's locker to try to embarrass or annoy them or whatever, sure then that act is harassment. But all this panic and pearl-clutching over AI generated images is silly. In 5 years there will be AI-nudes of everyone and we'll all collectively shrug it off and go about our days and laugh at the luddite prudes of yesteryear.

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
I don't believe that's true. If the boys had drawn pornographic, photorealistic pictures of the girls in question, and distributed them, it would be a serious matter. You have to actually reckon with these difficult questions instead of just brushing them aside. Why is it an act of harassment to put them up if it's not am act of harassment to produce and distribute them? I also don't agree with your final assertion at all, I think we're in for a world of hurt here.