Justice Thomas too forecasted that "technology may evolve to the point where it becomes impossible to enforce actual child pornography laws because the Government cannot prove that certain pornographic images are of real children." In his view, "if technological advances thwart prosecution of 'unlawful speech,' the Government may well have a compelling interest in barring or otherwise regulating some narrow category of 'lawful speech' in order to enforce effectively laws against pornography made through the abuse of real children."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Isn't the obvious conclusion that if you are unable to differentiate from AI CSAM and real CSAM, the safest thing for the victims is to treat it all as real CSAM?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Who are the victims of AI generated images? This stuff is absolutely repulsive, but the reasoning for outlawing it (that it’s evidence of, and was produced during, the commission of a crime) falls apart when it’s fake. Now if it can be linked to the commission of future abuse, that starts to make sense in the way that reckless behavior is illegal even if a particular incident doesn’t hurt anybody.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    The people that the generated image was aggregated from are the victims.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Not a great argument: why shouldn't they track down a real victim to confirm actual abuse took place? Seems like an argument for lazy police work & a surrender to authority.

    I don't see this argument come up with fictitious depictions of homicide & other crimes.

  • source
  • parent