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.
I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.
The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.
Like your examples show, some videos of crime are in fact illegal in some places. It is however the videos themselves that are illegal, for any reason, not due to the mere fact that they depict crime.
The Christchurch shooting is a good example, the video had to be banned on its own, showing how such videos are not normally illegal. It had to be banned specifically.
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.
drawn pornographic depcitions are generally legal and protected by the first amendment in the united states, even if the artist explicitly states the characters are minors.
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).
I don’t draw a line. If something 100% made up upsets you, nobody us putting your nose in it.
Your “they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole” comment is terrifying to me, because a lot of people in power believe that the mere existence of some people is “damaging to society as a whole”.
The morality is actually a little greyer there. There is research showing that consuming cartoon or otherwise artificially drawn CSAM does in fact raise the likelihood of the person who consumes it actually committing an act of abuse against a child, instead of being an effective substitute to prevent such acts.
Therefore, it may be a good idea to ban such images even though their production is harmless.
It’s a difficult area of research, which is why it’s a shame that we need more data on the issue to inform our laws on banning or not banning artificially produced CSAM.
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.
I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.
The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.
the video of the Christchurch mosque shootings is illegal in NZ and Australia.
A cartoon of Bart and Lisa having sex is classified as child pornography in Australia.
and a zillion other examples
And now we are back on topic!
Like your examples show, some videos of crime are in fact illegal in some places. It is however the videos themselves that are illegal, for any reason, not due to the mere fact that they depict crime.
The Christchurch shooting is a good example, the video had to be banned on its own, showing how such videos are not normally illegal. It had to be banned specifically.
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.
drawn pornographic depcitions are generally legal and protected by the first amendment in the united states, even if the artist explicitly states the characters are minors.
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?
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).
The usual line drawn is photorealistic. Mostly because they don’t want that used as a defense for the real thing.
I don’t draw a line. If something 100% made up upsets you, nobody us putting your nose in it.
Your “they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole” comment is terrifying to me, because a lot of people in power believe that the mere existence of some people is “damaging to society as a whole”.
Yes. As long as the image is not created through raping somebody, it’s morally okay, since no real person was violated.
Anything which requires violating somebody to be produced.
The morality is actually a little greyer there. There is research showing that consuming cartoon or otherwise artificially drawn CSAM does in fact raise the likelihood of the person who consumes it actually committing an act of abuse against a child, instead of being an effective substitute to prevent such acts.
Therefore, it may be a good idea to ban such images even though their production is harmless.
It’s a difficult area of research, which is why it’s a shame that we need more data on the issue to inform our laws on banning or not banning artificially produced CSAM.
Do you have the link to the paper?
Amen.