jkrtn

joined 2 years ago
[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Won't he just ignore it? I'm sure he's seen all the MAGAs ignoring subpoenas and court orders with zero consequences.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Blind obedience to god telling you to murder someone, no matter how dear they are to you, is one of the most highly praised actions in the Abrahamic canon.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Why, what is the liberal option for dealing with a mass murderer in the system that we currently have?

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't this the same fragile removed who panicked that his private jet flights were being posted?

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

"All the evidence is fake" only works on you far right guys.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

He literally told you he would not accept the election results unless he won. You have every reason to believe he was and is trying to overthrow the government, but you are deliberately ignoring them.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but then that's a home run for every defense lawyer assigned to these. "Your honor, my client thought they were real photos she published," becomes a legitimate defense. "My client didn't realize a real person was involved at all, he thought the image was entirely fictitious." People publishing AI fakes aren't going to add exif data, and requiring meta data on AI generated images sounds like its own separate overreach.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Yes, along with hundreds of other facts.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If someone completely independently generates and distributes pornography that ends up looking too much like a real person, and someone else downloads and keeps that image, should the downloader be prosecuted? That's what it's going to come down to, I think. If you want a law that requires intent, it will be too difficult to prove, and if you want a law that does not require intent, it may be a big overreach.

It's easier to write the law for CSAM because you have to be pretty fucked in the head to want to look at that in the first place. Making possession of it illegal isn't interfering with normal human activity.

view more: ‹ prev next ›