This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.
Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.
It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.
I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.
The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.
Like your examples show, some videos of crime are in fact illegal in some places. It is however the videos themselves that are illegal, for any reason, not due to the mere fact that they depict crime.
The Christchurch shooting is a good example, the video had to be banned on its own, showing how such videos are not normally illegal. It had to be banned specifically.
video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people.
Disagree.
Loads of countries treat animations or computer generated images the same as photos.
No one is “defending pixels”. The actual reasons are that the abuse of children should not be normalised, that authorities should not have to identify a specific victim, and that no legitimate artistic interest is served.
That said, the question of whether a child in an oven depicts child abuse according to the interpretation of the court is another question entirely, and I suspect that the answer is that it does not. Yes placing a child in an oven would be abusive, no an image of a child in an oven is not “child abuse material”.
Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business.
I agree with the points you’re making, but I’d also like to put in my two cents as a victim of CSA and CSAM production. Not that it makes me an any sort of authority on it; I just wanted to share my opinion.
I don’t think fictional material should be considered the same as real footage. In real material there is a victim whereas (unless a person’s likeness is being used) there is none in fictional material. The reason CSAM is so horrible is because of the fact there is a victim, not because the material itself is disturbing (which it is, don’t get me wrong). I think that making them equal crimes is a huge disservice to the victims and downplays the crime that was committed against them, both socially and legally. In my experience a lot of people already oppose CSAM more so due to the material being graphic rather than the actual assault and continued violence against the victim by possessing/sharing footage of it.
I appreciate that you probably have given this difficult area more thought than I.
I don’t think that fictional material really is considered the same as real footage, but I do think that possession of fictional material should still be a crime.
A criminal court process has two parts: firstly deciding whether the defendant is guilty of the crime they are charged with, and secondly deciding the punishment given the severity of the crime and the impact on the victims.
In Australia, if you’re charged with possession of CSAM then the fictional nature of the material is not a defense. Possession is a crime and it’s the same crime as possession of real images.
However, in the second part the judge is of course going to weigh the impact on victims in determining the sentence.
There’s a longer conversation to be had about the objectives of the penal system, but the abridged version is that I genuinely believe that disallowing the fictional nature of images as a defense helps prevent harms to potential victims. It would be dramatically more difficult to secure convictions against abusers if police need to identify a victim in each case.
The actual reasons are that the abuse of children should not be normalised
I don’t think we should normalise torture, non-child abuse, exploitation, war, deception, genocide, manipulation, etc. either, but I don’t give a crap if someone make a video of it.
For example, do you think CSAM should be legal as long as those in the material are fictional?
If you think that is not okay, would it make a difference to you if those in the material were not “realistic” (but still underage)?
I don’t think people are suggesting it should be illegal because they personally don’t want to see it, but rather because they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole.
drawn pornographic depcitions are generally legal and protected by the first amendment in the united states, even if the artist explicitly states the characters are minors.
las I checked it was being decided by the courts because the laws aren’t very clear and neither is the first amendment. I think that it’s legality probably should be handled on a case by case basis until people understand the technology better because “realistic” is unfortunately too vague for me to feel comfortable wanting laws using (imagine a “realistic” oil painting getting outlawed).
I don’t draw a line. If something 100% made up upsets you, nobody us putting your nose in it.
Your “they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole” comment is terrifying to me, because a lot of people in power believe that the mere existence of some people is “damaging to society as a whole”.
The morality is actually a little greyer there. There is research showing that consuming cartoon or otherwise artificially drawn CSAM does in fact raise the likelihood of the person who consumes it actually committing an act of abuse against a child, instead of being an effective substitute to prevent such acts.
Therefore, it may be a good idea to ban such images even though their production is harmless.
It’s a difficult area of research, which is why it’s a shame that we need more data on the issue to inform our laws on banning or not banning artificially produced CSAM.
This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.
Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.
It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.
I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.
The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.
the video of the Christchurch mosque shootings is illegal in NZ and Australia.
A cartoon of Bart and Lisa having sex is classified as child pornography in Australia.
and a zillion other examples
And now we are back on topic!
Like your examples show, some videos of crime are in fact illegal in some places. It is however the videos themselves that are illegal, for any reason, not due to the mere fact that they depict crime.
The Christchurch shooting is a good example, the video had to be banned on its own, showing how such videos are not normally illegal. It had to be banned specifically.
Disagree.
Loads of countries treat animations or computer generated images the same as photos.
No one is “defending pixels”. The actual reasons are that the abuse of children should not be normalised, that authorities should not have to identify a specific victim, and that no legitimate artistic interest is served.
That said, the question of whether a child in an oven depicts child abuse according to the interpretation of the court is another question entirely, and I suspect that the answer is that it does not. Yes placing a child in an oven would be abusive, no an image of a child in an oven is not “child abuse material”.
Preposterous.
I agree with the points you’re making, but I’d also like to put in my two cents as a victim of CSA and CSAM production. Not that it makes me an any sort of authority on it; I just wanted to share my opinion.
I don’t think fictional material should be considered the same as real footage. In real material there is a victim whereas (unless a person’s likeness is being used) there is none in fictional material. The reason CSAM is so horrible is because of the fact there is a victim, not because the material itself is disturbing (which it is, don’t get me wrong). I think that making them equal crimes is a huge disservice to the victims and downplays the crime that was committed against them, both socially and legally. In my experience a lot of people already oppose CSAM more so due to the material being graphic rather than the actual assault and continued violence against the victim by possessing/sharing footage of it.
I appreciate that you probably have given this difficult area more thought than I.
I don’t think that fictional material really is considered the same as real footage, but I do think that possession of fictional material should still be a crime.
A criminal court process has two parts: firstly deciding whether the defendant is guilty of the crime they are charged with, and secondly deciding the punishment given the severity of the crime and the impact on the victims.
In Australia, if you’re charged with possession of CSAM then the fictional nature of the material is not a defense. Possession is a crime and it’s the same crime as possession of real images.
However, in the second part the judge is of course going to weigh the impact on victims in determining the sentence.
There’s a longer conversation to be had about the objectives of the penal system, but the abridged version is that I genuinely believe that disallowing the fictional nature of images as a defense helps prevent harms to potential victims. It would be dramatically more difficult to secure convictions against abusers if police need to identify a victim in each case.
AI generated material will have been trained on real material so it’s not exactly entirely fictional.
deleted by creator
I don’t think we should normalise torture, non-child abuse, exploitation, war, deception, genocide, manipulation, etc. either, but I don’t give a crap if someone make a video of it.
And where do you draw the line?
For example, do you think CSAM should be legal as long as those in the material are fictional?
If you think that is not okay, would it make a difference to you if those in the material were not “realistic” (but still underage)?
I don’t think people are suggesting it should be illegal because they personally don’t want to see it, but rather because they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole.
drawn pornographic depcitions are generally legal and protected by the first amendment in the united states, even if the artist explicitly states the characters are minors.
Uh huh. Kinda sidestepped all my questions there. Where do you draw the line?
So, “drawn” kiddie porn is legal in the US. What about realistic AI generated kiddie porn? Is that protected by the first ammendment?
Do you think it should be?
Should you be allowed to distribute it, or do you feel its okay only if it stays in your personal collection?
las I checked it was being decided by the courts because the laws aren’t very clear and neither is the first amendment. I think that it’s legality probably should be handled on a case by case basis until people understand the technology better because “realistic” is unfortunately too vague for me to feel comfortable wanting laws using (imagine a “realistic” oil painting getting outlawed).
The usual line drawn is photorealistic. Mostly because they don’t want that used as a defense for the real thing.
I don’t draw a line. If something 100% made up upsets you, nobody us putting your nose in it.
Your “they believe that it is damaging to society as a whole” comment is terrifying to me, because a lot of people in power believe that the mere existence of some people is “damaging to society as a whole”.
Yes. As long as the image is not created through raping somebody, it’s morally okay, since no real person was violated.
Anything which requires violating somebody to be produced.
The morality is actually a little greyer there. There is research showing that consuming cartoon or otherwise artificially drawn CSAM does in fact raise the likelihood of the person who consumes it actually committing an act of abuse against a child, instead of being an effective substitute to prevent such acts.
Therefore, it may be a good idea to ban such images even though their production is harmless.
It’s a difficult area of research, which is why it’s a shame that we need more data on the issue to inform our laws on banning or not banning artificially produced CSAM.
Do you have the link to the paper?
Amen.