Replying to @⁨Saledovil@sh.itjust.works⁩

This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.

Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.

It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.

Replying to @⁨cley_faye@lemmy.world⁩

And where do you draw the line?

For example, do you think CSAM should be legal as long as those in the material are fictional?

If you think that is not okay, would it make a difference to you if those in the material were not “realistic” (but still underage)?

I don’t think people are suggesting it should be illegal because they personally don’t want to see it, but rather because they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole.

Replying to @⁨jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works⁩

Uh huh. Kinda sidestepped all my questions there. Where do you draw the line?

So, “drawn” kiddie porn is legal in the US. What about realistic AI generated kiddie porn? Is that protected by the first ammendment?

Do you think it should be?

Should you be allowed to distribute it, or do you feel its okay only if it stays in your personal collection?

en

Replying to @⁨Jason@feddit.uk⁩

las I checked it was being decided by the courts because the laws aren’t very clear and neither is the first amendment. I think that it’s legality probably should be handled on a case by case basis until people understand the technology better because “realistic” is unfortunately too vague for me to feel comfortable wanting laws using (imagine a “realistic” oil painting getting outlawed).