How do you know & by what objective legal standard would you prove it? What's your objective standard for literal?

The images you argue about are literally fake! If you're going to say a real face is in a work we know is fake & claim that exercise of imagination as legally relevant fact, then everyone else should get to do the same.

Well there's the glaringly obvious fact that police recovered seven additional images and were able to associate them to girls or women from the school. How is that possible if this is all an exercise of "imagination?" These people aren't imagined they're real. These images aren't imagined they're real. Imagination doesn't come into play at all here. By your standard, any picture whether taken with a camera or generated with AI is fake too. A picture of you couldn't be real because you're standing right there not trapped inside of this computer! It's pure nonsense.

Because I'm honestly acknowledging the imagination you're not.

You didn't "honestly acknowledge" this until being called out for dancing around it in a weak attempt at bolstering your argument.

You claim a "real" face that objectively isn't: it's a fictitious illustration of a face. This requires imagination/suspension of disbelief.

Once again, any picture whether captured with a camera or generated with AI is a "fictitious illustration" by your ridiculous standards.

Your claim of child sexual abuse material would at the very least involve an actual sexual abuse in its production: that's the essential element of the crime. It doesn't apply here.

Oh really? So you think anyone can take nude photos of children and it doesn't count as CSAM just so long as they don't touch them? Someone could take photos through a kid's bedroom window and it's all good because they're not being touched and may not even know about the photo? Alternatively, someone could take photos of a child and then make their hair purple in Photoshop and suddenly its no longer CSAM because the photos have been "doctored" and are now "fake" right? Thats not how any of this works.

You're making the incredible claims here lacking justification.

Nice appeal to pity fallacy. It's irrelevant: they're not legal scholars.

Wow, so now not only do you think all CSAM should be legal because all images are fake, but also because the victims arent legal scholars? Now you're effectively arguing that no victim of any crime should be considered a victim unless they've attended law school first.

Tell me, are you a legal scholar? If not, why the double standard between you and these adolescent victims? You say they need to be legal scholars in order for their opinions to matter while not holding yourself to the same standard.

Our laws at the very least have some rational standards not to abandon substantive facts.

They do, and here you are trying to argue the complete opposite with arguments such as "someone could imagine this black circle as a child's face therefore CSAM isn't real."

You're disgusting and a perverted moron and I'm done with you.

Just wanted to butt in and say that you definitely need your hard drives checked. Strange hills and what not.

Your statement relies on the idea that the image is not the person. While that's true, the image depicts the person. If I made a painting of child porn, it is still child porn, even though it has no literal duplication of the original image and relies on my imagination to come to fruition. Moreover, when I see a painting of a person, I can recognize them from it, and most people who can associate it with the person depicted and don't think to themselves, "Oh, that's an image that looks a lot like them, but am I sure it's an image of them?" Either way, these images are defamation of the people depicted, which is still illegal. Also, they are still depictions of child porn, which are illegal in many jurisdictions, even if they don't depict actual people, regardless of the hoops you want to jump through. Your quaint little image has an interesting point where it might make you a holder of child porn if you believe it's child porn, but not me who just sees stick figures, but I don't know if intent is relevant for child porn.