Before the "Well they're just fictional images, so what's the harm?" brigade shows up (hopefully we left them on Reddit), he was using photographs of real children. People would send him photos of children they knew in their personal lives who they wanted to see in sexual abuse situations and he would create the images. He was also convicted of encouraging the men he was talking to to rape children in real life.
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
58 points (96.8% liked)
Legal News
566 readers
60 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yes, that's clearly sexual abuse of actual children.
You know that's different from fiction - right? Like it's fundamentally worse than a drawing, because it's fundamentally different from a drawing?
You mean to tell me there's nuance here? I want my morality to be black and white! Thinking is hard and I don't want to do it.
I feel like we're agreeing but for some reason you're mad about it.
Because I wasn't sure, the way your comment comes out swinging.
Too many threads like this feature people who are convinced that corporate models were trained on hyper-illegal pornography (with accurate human labeling!) or that the absence of real human persons is no excuse. Like they're not clear why this specific thing is as illegal as possible.
They always say it's for creating the images, but it's always actually for distributing the images.