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.”
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?
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.
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.
The people that the generated image was aggregated from are the victims.
So, everyone who’s ever had a picture of them on the Internet?
The nude children? Yeah bud
Well my point is that if you can’t differentiate between real or fake, you have no idea if there are victims or not, so you have to assume there are as a worst-case.
That would mean less money to go around to track down the real monsters abusing children because everything spent to track down victims that don’t exist is wasted.