4 ms·
> one can be convicted of CSAM-related crimes related to paintings/drawings/created_art of fictional people. This isn't necessarily the case in the US, though
by ux266478 3mo ago
> one can be convicted of CSAM-related crimes related to paintings/drawings/created_art of fictional people.
This isn't necessarily the case in the US, though I believe only for drawings. AI-generated CSAM probably wouldn't fly in a court of law.
Regardless, it's a naive conception of a system of law to think of it as a utilitarian system of restitution in contexts of "this individual harmed this individual". In fact, that would fall under the category of a "tort" rather than a "crime". The law is just as much about enforcing social mores and norms as it is about dealing with individuals harming each other. Hence why locales like Canada outlaw all forms CSAM, even fictional ones. The victim taken is to be society itself. The possession of this material, implicitly entailing enjoyment of it, is so gross a violation of society's norms and mores that it becomes elevated to a legal matter.
- voxic11 3mo agoFor drawings it has to additionally be "obscene" (since obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment). And there is also a specific law that criminalizes even non-obscene realistic computer generated imagery.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoNot quite. There can be more restrictions on the distribution or promotion of obscene material, but mere possession of obscene material is protected by the first Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia The reason why the Supreme Court upheld bans on possessing CSAM is not because it's obscene, but because it incentivizes abuse of children to produce it.
- voxic11 3mo agoStanley v. Georgia considered the question from the right to privacy side, not the first amendment. The relevant cases are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... and United States v. Williams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003#Supreme_Court_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003#Supreme_Co...
- RIMR 3mo agoThis is an extremely important point to understand. At face value, it can feel like CSAM should be protected speech, however repulsive. There are no laws against gore videos, though one might argue that death is worse than SA. However, we have substantial empirical evidence that CSAM directly contributes to offending behavior. We also acknowledge that participating in pornography requires consent, and that the continued distribution of nonconsensual pornography constitutes a continuing crime against the unwilling subject. Because children have zero legal capacity to consent, CSAM is de facto illegal. It misses the point to think that CSAM is illegal because it is "obscene". It isn't illegal because it's disgusting; it's illegal because it's egregiously harmful to children. It's like thinking the bad thing a murderer did was make a mess.
- rootusrootus 3mo ago> It misses the point to think that CSAM is illegal because it is "obscene". Are you sure you're not the one missing the point here? You're replying to the tail end of branch of discussion about AI-generated imagery. Obscene is the only argument that works against it.
- RIMR 3mo agoMost of the people getting busted for AI-generated CSAM aren't just prompting an AI to generate inappropriate images. They are running pictures of real kids through nudifying apps. Nonconsensual pornography is nonconsensual pornography. If a real child is involved, it is criminal. With that said, purely AI-generated CSAM, while certainly disgusting, does pass the test for free speech, in that there are no victims and it is purely offensive, not actually damaging.
- inigyou 3mo agoHow is obscenity defined? "I know it when I see it" i.e. "anything I think doesn't deserve first amendment protection"?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- engeljohnb 3mo ago> The law is just as much about enforcing social mores and norms This shouldn't be the case in a society that supposedly values liberty.
- Exoristos 3mo agoThere is no _society_ without _social_ mores and norms.
- engeljohnb 3mo agoI'm not denying they exist, I'm saying a society that values liberty shouldn't enforce them by law.
- RIMR 3mo agoThis is an argument I find myself making depressingly frequently to people I thought knew better...