posted in Technology
US judge ruled AI-generated child sexual abuse material is protected by First Amendment.
cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1368970/judge-ruled-ai-generated-child-sex-abuse-material-is-protected-by-first-amendment
reason.com/volokh/2026/08/27/home-possession-of-ai-generated-porn-depicting-fake-children-remains-constitutionally-protected-seventh-circuit-rules/Replying to @beep@piefed.world
If you read the article, this is a very specific legal question. And honestly, it’s too gross to contemplate, and having a strong opinion about this on the internet is rightly suspicious.
The good news is the criminal in this case didn’t just posess CSAM, and no matter how this shakes out, they going to jail.
Replying to @yesman@lemmy.world
I heard there is a theory from therapists that being able to create that content can help quell urges, and so we should allow it if it protects real kids, vile as it is. However others argue it could cause it cause more to cause harm.
Either way, the decision is well above my ability to decide, and while I would hope actual professionals would have a say, unfortunately it’s going to be a political thing. Pandoras box is wide open though.
Replying to @scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
This isn’t someone drawing CP though. It’s AI-generated CP, which means the model had to be actually trained on CP. You might argue that there are already models trained on CP, and the chicken is already in the nugget, but legalising it creates financial incentive to train on CP because then you can sell your model to paedophiles.
Replying to @communism@lemmy.ml
Correct, and another reason why it’s complex. If it was trained on it that’s bad, but if the user didn’t do the training does that mean what they are doing is okay if it helps them? Or is it bad because of the source? It’s a whole can of worms that we won’t be able to come to a concensus here, too many grey areas.