News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
It's already illegal to do basically most of the things leading up to a murder. You're not allowed to conspire to commit one, stalk your target, break into a building, torture animals, kidnap, hire a hitman, etc.
TV and movies should not be able to show crimes, because images depicting crimes should be illegal.
(I’m just illustrating the slippery slope criminalizing “artistic” renderings)
I'm not advocating for what you're saying here at all.
So there you go, your slope now has gravel on it.
EDIT: This dude was arrested using today's laws, and I'm pretty sure the series Dexter is still legal to write, direct, film, and view. So your slippery slope is a fallacious one (as most of them tend to be in my experience).
So artistic images of things that would be a crime in real life should be legal?
Sure, with some exceptions and reasonable definitions.
So, murder images should probably be banned right? One of those exceptions.
Never said, wrote, or even thought any such thing.
I know, it’s a question. What about… rape? Is that okay? What are your exceptions?
CSAM is the exception, Socrates. Also as far as definitions go, computer models aren't artists.
So, hand drawn is fine?
I don't know how well-rendered CSAM has to be in order to be considered legal or illegal, and I frankly don't give a shit.
You seem to give a shit.
You seem to give a shit. I'm completely fine with the current legal constraints.
EDIT: I have a downvote button too! Look at us!
I’m just hesitant to make open ended laws about things that aren’t actually real. What’s next? Images mocking Jesus are illegal?
Is every surface a non-stop slip and slide to you?
These are bad arguments. Spare me the "this will encroach on the first amendment" for a case of something where the laws that someone was arrested under encroach on the first amendment in a way you disagree with.
Maybe that is this case, maybe you already think it's "a step too far" for people to be arrested for AI CSAM...but then argue that instead of trying to pretend that it's a step along a path to a violation of some great philosophical principle you hold.
I’m just interested where your morals stop. An AI image of murdering a child is perfectly fine with you—in a legal sense—as long as they have pants on. Strange.
Morality and legality are two completely different things.
Morally, I think all of it sucks ass including what you're describing...but that only has a tenuous relationship with what is or ought to be illegal.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on some things.
Btw, I enjoyed that slip and slide comment. Very clever.
Why should this be illegal?
Because it's illegal.
It should be illegal for a number of reasons. One is a simple practical one: as the technology advances towards increasing levels of realism it'll become impossible for law enforcement to determine what material is "regular" CSAM versus what material is "generated" CSAM.
So, unless you're looking to repeal all laws against possession of CSAM, you'll have a difficult time crafting a cut-out for generated CSAM.
And honestly, why bother? What's the upside here? To have pedos get a more fulfilling wank to appease them and hope they won't come after your kids for real? I really doubt the premise behind that one.
Allowing for victimless crimes simply because a group is undesirable is a terrible precedent. We can't ban things just because they make us uncomfortable. Or because it makes law enforcements job easier.
I wouldn't even call it victimless, and we have all kinds of actual victimless crimes that are already illegal so I don't care about supposedly setting this "precedent" that has already been set a million times over.
And we should be undoing those laws
We aren't though, so it's frankly pretty odd that you're fixated on this one.
It's frankly pretty odd that Lemmy in general seems to be fairly pro-generated-CSAM. I'm betting you guys are just afraid of the feds finding your stashes.
EDIT: I basically get maybe three replies a week to things I post on here, except when I post something about being okay with generated CSAM or deepfake porn being illegal (in which case I get binders full of creeps in my inbox).
There it is. "If you disagree with me you're a pedo". You people always go back to that. I bet I could convince you to hack off your own arm as long as I said anyone with a left arm is a pedo.
I bet you've never convinced anyone of anything ever.
I'm not interested in going a hundred rounds with you on this. You haven't made any convincing arguments at all; you're making the type of shitty "anti-regulation" arguments that right libertarians have been making in bad faith in threads with me and others for decades.
And all to what end?
There's nothing much to be gained by allowing this filth to be legal, and enforceability of important law to be lost.
Bootlickers throughout history.
Rights are rights, and they should apply to everyone. Even the unsavory types.
Rights can have boundaries; freedoms can have restrictions. Take your toddler's understanding of law, rights, freedoms, along with your don't tread on me flag and kindly fuck off.
Freedom from thoughtcrime should have no restrictions. It should never be a crime simply to think or feel a certain way.
Victimless crimes should not be a thing. Anything that doesn't harm anyone should be legal.
But you are allowed to stage a murder; hire a film crew to record your staged murder; pay television stations and websites to show a preview of your staged murder, and sell a recording of your staged murder to anyone who wants to buy. Depending on how graphic it is, you might be required to put an age advisory on your work and not broadcast it on public airwaves; but that is about the extent of the regulation.
You can even stage murders of children and show that.
Even if the underlying murder is real, there is still no law outlawing having a recording of it. Even producing a recording of a murder isn't technically illegal; although depending on the context you might still be implicated in a conspiracy to commit murder.
Sexual assult of children is the only crime for which the mere depiction of the crime is itself a crime.
Okay. Why should I care that this is an exception case?
Laws aren't derived from clean general principles by the gods on Mt. Olympus.
Another thing that you "can't we think of the poor, helpless pedos that want to nut?" people don't seem to think of is that if AI CSAM grows increasingly more realistic and we carve out an exception for it, how can you enforce laws against non-generated CSAM? You'd have to have some computer forensics asshole involved in every case to prove whether or not the images are generated, which would likely produce a chilling effect over time on regular CSAM cases, and all of this for the "societal benefit" of allowing pedos a more gratifying wank.
For the societal benefit of not ceding our rights to government.
Today it's pedophilia, but what about if Trump wins and legally designates trans people as pedophiles?
This is a power we cannot allow the government to have.
The right to create realistic looking CSAM is not a right I give a shit about having.
What if a lawless dictator does crazy things? I'm not sure the law (or lack thereof) will have anything to do with that scenario.
The whole idea of "if X is illegal, then the government will use the law against X against us" only matters in the context of a government following the law.
If they're willing to color outside the lines and the courts say the law doesn't apply to them then it doesn't matter one fucking bit.
I'm not suggesting they'll abandon the rule of law. I'm suggesting they'll use this as precedent to legally oppress us.
And I'm saying that they won't have to.
Which is a terrible excuse for allowing bad laws. Sure, ok, let's assume you're right and this specific group will break the law anyway. Maybe let's prepare for other tyrannical groups?
Other tyrannical groups that also won't follow the law? I don't think laws will "prepare" for those either.
Well then why even have laws?
I'm talking about the extremely common scenario in history where the government makes an unjust law and then follows it, so their persecution is totally legal.
The law isn't unjust.
All hail the Just and Glorious Boot, crushing the necks of the unworthy