Date: August 30th, 2026 6:38 AM Author: Effete Cracking Step-uncle's House Dragon
To be fair, isn't the idea that the govt's power to regulate obscenity doesn't extend to possession by an individual in the privacy of his own home old law? idk if the test for child shit is diff.
Date: August 30th, 2026 6:59 AM Author: Effete Cracking Step-uncle's House Dragon
Seems reasonable enough I guess, but I just reading about the case and apparently the guy got caught because he was sharing the stuff with minors on instagram, which in that case it obviously should be illegal. One thing that stood out to me is that people are trying to say that the old laws shouldn't apply because people couldn't have predicted ai would get this advanced and generate stuff that looks so realistic. But imo there have always been artists who painted and drew stuff that looks more realistic than what the current image generators do. If not then it's close. So whatever law they decided in the past should still apply. Seems like it's more about how easy it is to do it.
Date: August 30th, 2026 8:36 AM Author: aromatic disgusting nowag
Mere possession of the images themselves, on any device composed of any parts created or sold by means of interstate commerce, is a federal crime. Receipt by means of the internet or mail is also sparately a federal crime.
Date: August 30th, 2026 8:40 AM Author: exciting main people patrolman
yes, but mere possession is criminalized under the theory that children are harmed by the possession -- u either made the material yourself or you downloaded it from someone else who is distributing it. no?
and neither of those rationales apply to mere possession of AI porn
Date: August 30th, 2026 7:52 AM Author: Painfully Honest Chartreuse Indirect Expression
The compelling interest rationale in child porn cases has always been harm to children. If no children involved in production, the harm to children has to become more attenuated.
Date: August 30th, 2026 7:40 AM Author: aromatic disgusting nowag
Case law is all over the place on this. An Iowa comic book collector in Kansas was arrested and convicted for possessing Japanese lolicon comic books depicting cartoons that appeared to resemble children. And that is much more clearly art than AI images.
But to the extent art *is* protected, the theory behind the ban on AI images is that they are not art because it is so easy to generate them and takes so little technique, I guess.