Hacker News Reader

Comment by david38 | Hacker News Reader

Agreed.

Only someone trying to cheat would use the excuse that it wasn’t explicitly stated that AI was cheating.

This reminds me of the court case where they asked the court to define child pornography and they said “I can can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

Imagine saying with a straight face that some pictures you have of a minor are fine because this particular pose, facial expression, and clothing wasn’t specifically designed child porn. It would instantly make you sound like a pedo, like he sounds like a cheater

View on HN

> This reminds me of the court case where they asked the court to define child pornography and they said “I can can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

If you’re referring to the famous statement from Justice Potter Stewart’s concurrence in Jacobellis v. Ohio, that comment was in reference to defining “hardcore pornography,” not child pornography.

Exactly, it wasn't about CP (in particular) at all, just pornography. Which makes it a really horrible ruling: at least with CP, you can use age limits, though there's still huge controversies about 1) pictures by parents of their kids doing stuff like taking a bath and 2) artwork/animation that isn't even photography and never involved any actual children.

Stewart's ruling was ridiculous: how is anyone supposed to know whether something is "pornographic" or not if it can just be determined by some judge arbitrarily and capriciously, and there's no objective standard whatsoever? They could just rule any picture of an unclothed person to be illegal, even if it's something medical in nature. Heck, they could even rule a medical diagram to be porn. Or anything they want, really.

I think Germany has exclusions for pictures with your kids taking baths. That’s just pretty common and midwives will tell you to take a picture when they show you how to bath your baby for the first time.

We're talking about an American court ruling here, and America is well-known for being far more prudish than Germany, so I'm sure there's no exclusion there for kids taking baths.

> though there's still huge controversies about 1) pictures by parents of their kids doing stuff like taking a bath

Is this a controversy in the US?

I am fine with people worrying about Zuckerberg or Sandar potentially watching their naked kids, but I guess that the angle is that the parents would be 'perverts' and not the surveillance state being a problem?

Back in the 70's there was a sex-ed book called "Show Me" which featured very frank photographs of both adults and children, completely naked.

It was subject to litigation at the time it was released and was upheld as not being obscene. But it continued to cause moral panics and was eventually taken out of print by the publisher.

But it was never banned and can still be found as a collector's item. And in the mid 70's it was completely normal to walk into a book store and see it on display.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_Me!>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com