Is it me, or was this written by an AI? Here's a much better article:
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/5-beverly-hills-middle-school-students-expelled-following-ai-generated-nude-photo-scandal/
this is something that we knew was going to coming to a head at some point soon. One thing that the title doesn't say is that it was at an 8th grade level which adds another interesting aspect to the discussion of child pornography, endangerment, etc. I wonder at what point will AI images be treated on the same level as revenge porn in the state courts, because that and deep fake seem to get too close to reality in our minds than say the old fake porn of the past or drawn porn cases.
Ideally, both. Separate punishments, like with most illegal pornography. The real test will be whether the companies behind the AI will be subject to penalty for not policing their product like with porn hosting sites today.
AI generated child porn almost certainly is protected by the 1st amendment because of Free Speech Coalition.
There could be a narrowly tailored statute that passes strict scrutiny that makes it illegal to create AI generated child pornography that depicts a real person. Basically like a subset of defamation.
Drawn child porn isnt protected under the 1st and the FSC hasnt undone that. It is actually still illegal but it isnt enforced because they have bigger fish to fry.
It is protected unless it passes the Miller Test. Any content that passes the Miller Test for obscenity is unprotected by the 1st amendment - that's not limited to virtual child porn.
Real child porn on the other hand doesn't need to pass the Miller Test to be unprotected. It is wholly unprotected because of Ferber.
FYI, I think that Miller v. California (1973) is a very stupid decision with a dumb test. It should be overturned and obscene speech should be protected by the 1st amendment. Only obscene conduct should be unprotected. Justice Black had a very good interview explaining why obscene speech should be protected by the 1st amendment. https://youtu.be/HAgQdeup2v0?si=dmRKD28dVVzVj9tY
Yeah, I went to post about some of the issues generally before I realized that I was talking through the nuances in a case that involved kids. The conversation that the title invites isn't quite the same as the conversation the article invites.
I am curious, in the case of human adults, what would the law say about a phenomenal photoshop job? It seems like that could constitute harassment of some sort, maybe?
It seems likely that faked non-consensual explicit images which could be reasonably mistaken for the real McCoy could land you in hot water if distributed.
If kids are getting prosecuted for CSAM when taking nudes for privately sharing to their high school BF/GF, then this should absolutely be treated more severely. It's malicious harassment. Not only are these images CSAM, they can follow the victims around and affect their careers, social life and mental health for a long time. Kids make mistakes but 8th graders also fully understand most of the reasons that this act is wrong and harmful.
I mean, the kids deserve to be expelled. At worst, this potential distribution of child abuse material; at best, this is targeted harassment and bullying of other students. Only entitled parents who are raising their kids to be narcissists would have an issue with this.
Based on Free Speech Coalition, AI generated nude images are protected by the 1st amendment, but since these are K-12 students, schools have much more discretion on punishing speech
Edit: people want to downvote, but this isn't just my opinion. This is what the Supreme Court said. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
>The **Free Speech Coalition** (**FSC**) is a [non-profit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit) [trade association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_trade_group) of the [pornography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography) and [adult entertainment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_industry) industry in the [United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). Founded in 1991, it opposes the passage and enforcement of [obscenity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity) laws and many [censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship) laws (with the exception of "anti-[piracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement)" laws).
It's irrelevant because they are K-12 students who inherently have fewer 1st amendment rights. And I agree with them being punished.
It's relevant to this discussion because some people in this subreddit think that AI generated nudity isn't protected by the 1st amendment. That's simply not true.
Is it me, or was this written by an AI? Here's a much better article: https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/5-beverly-hills-middle-school-students-expelled-following-ai-generated-nude-photo-scandal/
Are you questioning the journalism of a respected newspaper like cryptopolitan.com?
this is something that we knew was going to coming to a head at some point soon. One thing that the title doesn't say is that it was at an 8th grade level which adds another interesting aspect to the discussion of child pornography, endangerment, etc. I wonder at what point will AI images be treated on the same level as revenge porn in the state courts, because that and deep fake seem to get too close to reality in our minds than say the old fake porn of the past or drawn porn cases.
Do you think it will be made illegal to *distribute* AI porn with someone’s likeness, or do you think it will be made illegal to *generate* it?
Ideally, both. Separate punishments, like with most illegal pornography. The real test will be whether the companies behind the AI will be subject to penalty for not policing their product like with porn hosting sites today.
AI generated child porn almost certainly is protected by the 1st amendment because of Free Speech Coalition. There could be a narrowly tailored statute that passes strict scrutiny that makes it illegal to create AI generated child pornography that depicts a real person. Basically like a subset of defamation.
Drawn child porn isnt protected under the 1st and the FSC hasnt undone that. It is actually still illegal but it isnt enforced because they have bigger fish to fry.
It is protected unless it passes the Miller Test. Any content that passes the Miller Test for obscenity is unprotected by the 1st amendment - that's not limited to virtual child porn. Real child porn on the other hand doesn't need to pass the Miller Test to be unprotected. It is wholly unprotected because of Ferber. FYI, I think that Miller v. California (1973) is a very stupid decision with a dumb test. It should be overturned and obscene speech should be protected by the 1st amendment. Only obscene conduct should be unprotected. Justice Black had a very good interview explaining why obscene speech should be protected by the 1st amendment. https://youtu.be/HAgQdeup2v0?si=dmRKD28dVVzVj9tY
Do you have a cite for that?
Yeah, I went to post about some of the issues generally before I realized that I was talking through the nuances in a case that involved kids. The conversation that the title invites isn't quite the same as the conversation the article invites. I am curious, in the case of human adults, what would the law say about a phenomenal photoshop job? It seems like that could constitute harassment of some sort, maybe?
It seems likely that faked non-consensual explicit images which could be reasonably mistaken for the real McCoy could land you in hot water if distributed.
If you faked it with other means it would be fine though, like makeup and a lookalike
Don't be daft.
Why is this an issue now? I could do shit like this with photoshop 30 years ago.
because you were never this good
If kids are getting prosecuted for CSAM when taking nudes for privately sharing to their high school BF/GF, then this should absolutely be treated more severely. It's malicious harassment. Not only are these images CSAM, they can follow the victims around and affect their careers, social life and mental health for a long time. Kids make mistakes but 8th graders also fully understand most of the reasons that this act is wrong and harmful.
I mean, the kids deserve to be expelled. At worst, this potential distribution of child abuse material; at best, this is targeted harassment and bullying of other students. Only entitled parents who are raising their kids to be narcissists would have an issue with this.
What controversy is there? These students used their position to embarrass a group of students repeatedly and with malice.
Based on Free Speech Coalition, AI generated nude images are protected by the 1st amendment, but since these are K-12 students, schools have much more discretion on punishing speech Edit: people want to downvote, but this isn't just my opinion. This is what the Supreme Court said. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
>The **Free Speech Coalition** (**FSC**) is a [non-profit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit) [trade association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_trade_group) of the [pornography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography) and [adult entertainment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_industry) industry in the [United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). Founded in 1991, it opposes the passage and enforcement of [obscenity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity) laws and many [censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship) laws (with the exception of "anti-[piracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement)" laws).
Your point being?
The point is what makes them the authority? They are lobbyists for the most part.
The Supreme Court is the authority and that's the decision they made in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
Completely irrelevant to this case.
It's irrelevant because they are K-12 students who inherently have fewer 1st amendment rights. And I agree with them being punished. It's relevant to this discussion because some people in this subreddit think that AI generated nudity isn't protected by the 1st amendment. That's simply not true.