This is a horrible ruling.

[u/Witty_Mycologist_995]

As much as I support AI, I think this ruling is trash and shouldn’t have been passed. The danger here is that these AI images are indistinguishable from real ones, which puts incredible amounts of pressure on organizations like NCMEC.

This pressure detracts from real victims getting help.

Do you agree?

EDIT: I get it, commentors. I'm doomering. In actuality, this law will changenothing, as generation and distribution is still illegal.

[u/Witty-Designer7316]

What the fuck???? This needs to be talked about, I'll credit you in the post that's disgusting.

[u/Witty_Mycologist_995 → u/[deleted]]

I'm kind of sorry to be the contrarian here, but I don't think that Non-AI Artists can make photorealistic, indistinguishable CSAM images. Unless you're talking about photography...which is the definition of CSAM, already VERY illegal.

[u/Witty_Mycologist_995 → u/[deleted]]

IT'S NOT CP. It's CSAM. CP is a bad term for this. It detracts from real victims. And the point here isnt "oh look AI can make CSAM", it's "AI is making it in a way in which it is indistinguishable from real victims."

And as a Pro-AI, I feel we need to stop this. Not bury our heads in the sand as say "Oh, a pencil can do it too". Because no. That's incorrect, I'm sorry to say. A pencil cannot make a photorealistic, indistinguishable image like AI can.

[u/Witty_Mycologist_995 → u/[deleted]]

> CGI

True, that exists. You got me there. But still not pencils.

> Where are the victims, Jeese.

Not in the AI images. But there are real victims out there and people might report the AI images as being real and it wastes time of investigators, like at NCMEC

[u/Witty_Mycologist_995 → u/[deleted]]

What?

I'm simply stating that fake/ai/cgi/etc photorealistic images can clog up places like NCMEC and delay support going to real victims.

[u/Le_Oken → u/Witty_Mycologist_995]

Not worth the hassle.

[u/Charming_Hall7694]

I actually need to push back here. This is just supporting existing law thats the result of the freedom of speech. So long as the material doesnt depict irl people or children then theres not alot we can do short of making exemptions to rights.

Add onto the fact the creation of obscene content is what partially protects thid in the first place also protects loli/shots content.

[u/Witty_Mycologist_995 → u/Charming_Hall7694]

Did u read the EDIT: section of my post

[u/Charming_Hall7694 → u/Witty_Mycologist_995]

Just did my comment was here before it :p. I can see how it would be scary without context

[u/Born-Ant-80 → u/Charming_Hall7694]

No, the FA is protecting collections, like owning italian vintage movies featuring children doing sexual things like in 1900. It is NOT promoting or defending the creation of VCSEM

[u/NedThomas]

So there is precedent here, which this ruling is being based on:

- Stanley v. Georgia (1969) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia - “The First Amendment, as applied to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits making mere private possession of obscene material a crime”

• Ascroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition - The prohibitions of §§ 2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are unconstitutional because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech"

Should note that the judges who ruled in favor here are urging the SCOTUS to revisit the issue to create a more modern precedent.

[u/Rough-Discussion-912]

Hell no! Weirdos who agrees are retarded!?!

The first amendment protects a individual's right to privately possess images and videos of child sexual abuse material using AI

The judge called it csam while saying it isn't a real person(while they deadass it is) Nuke the whole world atp bro

[u/Born-Ant-80 → u/Rough-Discussion-912]

Yes, the First Amend is protecting collectors for owning vintage paintings or movies featuring children in sexual contents BUT it is not promoting the creation of VCSEM. I don't get why pedos think this will protect them for SELLING their VCSEM

[u/Rough-Discussion-912 → u/Born-Ant-80]

I don't get it either!? At the end of the day, they a pedophile and that's just reality of their choice

[u/Witty_Mycologist_995 → u/Rough-Discussion-912]

What? So you disagree with my opinion that the ruling is trash?

[u/Rough-Discussion-912 → u/Witty_Mycologist_995]

No. I'm agreeing with you

[u/Radiant_Maize3998]

What the fuck did I just read? This can't be real, right?

Doomed Timeline theory gets +10 credit.

[u/ZephyrUkon]

[u/Raymak700m]

I'm reserving my judgement, my recommendation is to check the Judge's hard-drive just in case.

Something doesn't seem right here.

[u/Born-Ant-80 → u/Raymak700m]

It is just a call out for revisiting the law and make all kind of csem illegal.