Home Possession of AI-Generated Porn Depicting Fake Children Remains Constitutionally Protected, Seventh Circuit Rules
reason.com
From U.S. v. Anderegg, decided Tuesday by Seventh Circuit Judge John Lee, joined by Judges Doris Pryor and Joshua Kolar:...

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.”

  • darkmarx@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    3 days ago

    I didn’t make any argument and thought I was clear that I wasn’t going to make an argument, one way or another. I also stated that it should probably be illigal though I’m torn on it.

    I’m also not a free speech absolutist. There are things that need curtailed. I’m just hesitant to add more to that list as it can easily go too far, depending on who is in power. We see that world wide right now with Free Palestine.

    Free speech isn’t just about something spoken, it’s about expression as well. Taking and owning pictures is part of free speech. Limiting porn to 18+ is a great limitation and should not be changed.

    • unmagical@lemmy.ml
      41·
      3 days ago

      It should probably be illegal… Any curtailing of speech cuts the impact of the first amendment. It’s something that shouldn’t be done lightly.

      Free speech and expression should not be curtailed unless absolutely necessary; this goes for joining the Klan to making porn to having died hair. The limits in place for yelling fire in a theater, making credible threats, and producing real csam are there to prevent immediate harm.

      With AI generated csam … no person is harmed in its creation. Consumption of it could lead to harm, if it normalizes the behavior, making it seem alright for someone to harm a real child.

      If AI generated csam causes people to - who wouldn’t have otherwise - harm children, then it should be added to the list of banned speech. If not, then even though many of us will find it disgusting, it shouldn’t be made illegal.

      These are all arguments. Non committing doesn’t mean you aren’t making arguments. I was focusing specially on your 3rd argument as it was the most unfounded in my opinion.