Hacker News Reader

Comment by greenyoda | Hacker News Reader

In the U.S., operating a child sexbot would seem to be illegal under the PROTECT Act, which prohibits "virtual child porn":

"In the United States, the PROTECT Act of 2003 made significant changes to the law regarding virtual child pornography. Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A."[1]

Maybe the government could get away with it, but if independent researchers did it, they could be charged with producing child porn.

Yes, Orwell's "thoughtcrime" is an actual criminal offense in the U.S.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography#Vi...

View on HN

FWIW, simulated child porn laws aren't just about "thought crimes". They're motivated by the fact that defendants in cases involving real child porn sometimes claim the child porn is simulated, and it can be difficult and expensive to prove that false.

Which is why making pictures illegal is rather screwy.

Make causing actual harm to an actual child illegal. Make profiting from it (eg selling pictures of said actual harm) illegal. Make possessing pictures not illegal, but something that will get you asked where the pictures came from.

But really it is about thoughtcrime. Society (or at least politicians) have decided that having certain interests/desires is wrong (or rather, that those people are creepy and dangerous and can't possibly have the self-control to not fully act on said thoughts). And so anything that may indicate someone having said thoughts is made illegal, even if it doesn't hurt anyone, and even if it indicate that they know not to act in harmful ways.

>Make profiting from it (eg selling pictures of said actual harm) illegal.

Can't someone accused of selling child porn claim it's fake just as easily as someone simply accused of possessing it?

Sure, and the supposedly-stolen things I'm selling really just fell off the back of a truck.

I would think that sellers having ties to producers would have a harder time arguing they were selling fakes. And if they don't have those ties -- if they're not supporting the people causing the harm -- then their actions are only illegal for the sake of simplifying the prosecution's work. Which means their likely being able to get off at trial is less of an issue.

That something can make law enforcement's job harder, even though it's otherwise completely innocuous* , is a terrible reason for outlawing. Especially considering that whole first amendment thing.

* In this scenario it's something creepy but harmless. In another it might be fake guns or fake drugs * *

* * Consider the implications of outlawing bags of sugar.

Hmm. That is a tricky area. On the one hand, the presumption of innocence should be maintained. OTOH, any video could be simulated.

I'm not positive; but it doesn't look to me like they are really operating a child sexbot; they are operating a childbot that is soliciting sex work; which is very different. I find it unlikely (though, maybe?) that they are doing any nudity rendering or anything like that; just getting people to agree to pay money for some sex acts from the robot.

I was with you til the last sentence. Yes, making pornography that appears to be child porn is illegal. Even taking a real adult porn star and dressing her up as a child is illegal. Why is this Orwellian?

Because the reason child pornography is illegal is not that viewing child pornography is bad, it's that producing it is clearly wrong. The producers are hard to hit directly, but one can reduce their revenue by making it hard to consume their product.

Producing virtual child pornography is not obviously wrong. But no politician will speak up, because THINK OF THE CHILDREN (what children? DOESNT MATTER THINK OF THEM).

Thus orwellian thoughtcrime.

EDIT: I'm willing to agree that leaving real producers an escape path by letting them claim everything was virtual is bad. So the US clause for 'realistic' virtual porn is okay in my book.

But in the UK stylised drawings of child pornography are illegal. That's just silly.

'Realistic' virtual porn producers should just be asked about source for generated scene, just like producers of real porn are asked for actors age verification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_film_industry_regulation...). There is no reason to ban it just on this assumption. I think the real reason is different.

> Even taking a real adult porn star and dressing her up as a child is illegal.

Is it really? Isn't "catholic schoolgirl" stereotypically one of the most popular 'fetishes', right up there with "pizza delivery guy" (not sure I'd call roleplaying a fetish per-say)?

And at the same time, the adult porn business continues chugging on .. I have to wonder, what the fuck are we thinking as a human race, that if it's totally ok for adults to buy, distribute and sell porn, can't we really see that some people might not understand that it's not ok to watch porn with children .. and maybe they are driven to it originally by watching adult porn.

Would we have so many men interested in having sex with children if the porn industry wasn't so big ?

Paedophilia and ephebophilia have been around for far, far longer than the internet and porn.

What's next, asking if serial killing would be as popular as it is if it were not for action movies?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com