Apparently you can make it and own it if it’s all fake images. Something to do with the legal questions involved, if they illegalized this, then other non perverse things could be illegalized under that precedent. Unless congress steps up, (ha ha,) the judge might actually be in the right here I hate to say it.
Child abuse is always the trojan horse to take away freedoms it seems in the west.
The same reasoning under our current criminal codes would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden.
Same reason they overturned community moral standard laws a few decades back. Used against the worst cases they could find, but broad enough for them to target everything, like regular pornography. (30 year felony in the precedent setting case, shitholy state GA or something.)
That is what I read anyway. pedo in chief would presumably quash republican support for a new law, but really with all the dems they could get enough pubs to go along, maybe not to override a veto but enough to force the old baby raper in chief to publicly refuse to sign a law everyone supports, (assuming it’s not a freedom stealing bill, which it absolutely would be now that I think about it.)
Apparently you can make it and own it if it’s all fake images. Something to do with the legal questions involved, if they illegalized this, then other non perverse things could be illegalized under that precedent. Unless congress steps up, (ha ha,) the judge might actually be in the right here I hate to say it.
Child abuse is always the trojan horse to take away freedoms it seems in the west.
I think a law saying no AI generated CSAM, whether or not the child depicted is real, isn’t an overreach into our fucking freedoms.
The same reasoning under our current criminal codes would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden.
Same reason they overturned community moral standard laws a few decades back. Used against the worst cases they could find, but broad enough for them to target everything, like regular pornography. (30 year felony in the precedent setting case, shitholy state GA or something.)
No it wouldn’t.
That is what I read anyway. pedo in chief would presumably quash republican support for a new law, but really with all the dems they could get enough pubs to go along, maybe not to override a veto but enough to force the old baby raper in chief to publicly refuse to sign a law everyone supports, (assuming it’s not a freedom stealing bill, which it absolutely would be now that I think about it.)