How do they determine the images are generated and not real? It's not mentioned in the article.
And none of these people likely received mental health care as compensation for that work.
Oh, and of course, "the police" consists of police officers. There's a joke where I live about the exam to become a police officer. There's just one question: "how much is 5+5?", and all answers between 2 and 17 EXCEPT 10 are correct ...
It’s only particularly relevant in the context of terms of trying to identify the source of abuse and trying to stop or interrupt that.
I've thought about it for 5 seconds, and it's not obvious to me.
The whole possession of images is a crime is already a stretch, justified by the very real observation that the market for these images necessarily fuels abuse of real children.
But AI images cut that link.
I'm in complete agreement that the content is odious. But there's plenty of stuff that's odious and legal.
1. Some people think free speech is a pretty good idea. And it doesn't really mean much if you only defend speech that you agree with.
2. There's pretty widespread agreement that drug crimes are inhumane and should be replaced with treatment. So-called "victimless crimes". IMO, AI CP has the exact same characteristics, but it's even less damaging to society - there's no chance that someone will get into a car crash because they're "using".
3. Convictions here absolutely destroy lives. The consequence of being convicted for possession of CP is not just jail (where people absolutely do get attacked by other inmates, often times fatally), but also registry on the sexual offender list.
Do people who indirectly hurt children deserve this fate - I guess, it's complicated. It does seem out of proportion to the punishments handed out to people who kill others with cars, for example. But I can certainly get on board with some sort of criminal consequences.
But if the "offender" doesn't hurt anyone, even indirectly, that does seem like an absolute nuclear warhead of a punishment for something that most people would struggle to explain why it's a crime at all other than "it's gross".
Child porn is not protected by the first amendment, just like it does not protect speech calling for lawless action
"Muh free speech" is very often the weakest argument in any kind of debate.
I hate this argument when applied like this. There is no universe whatsoever where images of this nature constitute speech. Even when taken as the abstract principle and not the law. The images don't convey any message or idea. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Free speech doesn't protect mouth sounds or information transfer in abstract, it protects expressions of opinion and ideas. Now, if you went to a protest for legalization and made a sign with the images or made a display at an art gallery then you have a case that it's part of your free expression.
There is an argument for making free speech protections overbroad purposefully because we don't think government can be trusted to evaluate the nuance in good faith but this isn't one of those "well it's arguable as to whether it constitutes speech."
Not being speech doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, just that the reason it's allowed isn't free speech.
Do you think that ordinary porn constitutes speech, deserving of the protections of the First Amendment?
> The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited.
With the current composition of the court, I'm not convinced this precedent will hold up if a case reaches them. But until that happens, the law seems quite clear.