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.”
It’s because CSAM can be used to groom kids and has to be produced. It’s existance also leads to harm to the victims, who couldn’t consent to the act.
Producing csam involves sexual abuse, which is illegal already. Distributing it I can see should also be illegal as perpetuating the harm.
But we’re talking about child porn which may not have been made by abusing anyone due to being computer generated (or drawn, for example).
I don’t get the “can be used to groom kids” angle - so can candy. Grooming kids is illegal already.
CSAM, computer generated or drawn, can and has used references of other CSAM materials in order to be drawn. It’s existence can rely on the existence of previous materials, and it often does.
It makes it harder for kids to understand what’s wrong with the behaviour, and even grow up themselves to be offenders later on. Candy can’t do that.
“can, and often does” is not good enough for banning it. You’re trying to convince me it “can, and often does” rely on abuse material because that’s something basically everyone agrees is wrong… but that means that should be banned. And it is!
I generally assume that people who insist on calling drawn child porn etc “CSAM” even though it is not material containing child sexual abuse are too dogmatic about this to have a useful conversation with.
I have never heard of any evidence that seeing child porn can turn a child into a paedophile (if that’s what you meant by “offender”) and again, this can only happen if they see it… I think showing a child pornography is already illegal, as it should be.
You keep bringing up stuff that is already illegal as if we need to ban child porn to prevent it. That doesn’t make sense. I think you just find it horrible and so want it banned, which is understandable but still not the principle on which I think the law should operate.
I mean that it often does in action. Yes, theoretically, an AI could be successful at generating CSAM, but since in practice, it is nigh impossible to remove all instances of CSAM from scrapped data just by trying to filter it out, you cannot decouple the fact that it does use actual abuse material.
I was talking under the hypothetical that you proposed. That CP would be drawn. CP is a synonym for CSAM, although CSAM is more respectful. This is just semantics.
Groomers often use that as a tactic. It happens on the Internet as well. Porn can be shown, but unlike porn, CSAM is necessarily SA material. I’m saying that if it’s something ONLY used for that, then its harm is undeniable. Just having a legal blanket over the fact that showing a child porn is illegal is not the point. It’s what use case of the materials are actually valid. For example, consumming CSAM is invalid, since the children cannot consent. The second use case is grooming, which is also invalid. Since AI CSAM in practice has shown to be produced by agents that CAN’T filter out all CSAM from their data set (because it is impossible), then, for the respect of the victims, it should be illegal.
I’m not just bringing up things that are already illegal, but that if it’s used by predators to get off of material that is most likely made off of existing CSAM, and that it can harm children by the same means, then there isn’t any good that can come off of allowing its possession either. We’re talking about children who were exploited being reexploited again.
And what would stop a predator from saying that a footage or picture of CSAM was AI generated and get away with it? It purpousfully mudies the water.
Why does it matter than some tiny fraction of AI training data is child porn? Does it taint the whole model, or just when it generates child porn, and why? Does the fact that it has trained on other problematic content, such as photographs of real murders, mean that generated pictures of people being killed is more problematic than other ways of making those pictures? (Not to the point of illegality, since possessing pictures of a murder is not usually illegal). “Respect for the victims” is a vague thing that could be used to justify more or less anything; it’s not a sufficient principle, in my opinion, for curtailing freedoms. Not without something more concrete and objective.
“Semantics” means “what stuff means”, and what CSAM means specifically is Child Sexual Abuse Material. It’s not just a synonym.
You’re going through a number of situations which are harmful, and I don’t disagree about that. But that doesn’t prove that every situation is harmful. Just having child porn on your computer doesn’t harm anyone. Hell, jerking off to it does not - as far as I am aware from the present best research - harm anyone.
If you can’t prove harm, then it shouldn’t be illegal, I don’t think. If there’s proof of harm, then it doesn’t matter what the predator says.
Okay yeah no the fact that you defend owning CSAM is crazy and disrespectful to its victims. Fuck off
My first comment said:
Next time, try and pay more attention to the comments you’re replying to. You should have understood this already.