r/BlackPeopleTwitter • u/mmaroph ☑️ • 13h ago
Not posting kids on social media ever again...
440
u/dr_jiang 11h ago edited 4h ago
There's a lot of important context missing from this article. TL;DR: The judges don't like that they had to rule this way, but they're bound by precedent. Two of the three judges wrote separately, explicitly asking the Supreme Court to take up this case so the precedent can be changed.
The case involves a man who generated photorealistic images of children in sexually explicit situations, and sent them via DMs to a minor on Instagram. He was charged with four separate crimes: producing the images, possessing the images, distributing the images, and distributing the images to a minor specifically.
This ruling only addresses the possession charges. The production and dissemination parts are still illegal, and the charges stuck. But to the question of "can you possess explicit images of fake children in your house," the court explains they're bound by older precedent in four cases regarding obscene material.
The first is Stanley v. Georgia (1969). In Stanley, the Supreme Court held that the government can regulate obscenity, but that power doesn't reach inside the home. The state of Georgia had discovered adult films in a man's home while serving an unrelated search warrant, and charged him under the state's obscenity law. The Supreme Court ruled the government's interest is social -- it's about regulating obscenity in public places, when it's being displayed or performed or distributed. They cannot arrest you for simply having and enjoying obscene material in the privacy of your own home.
The second is New York v. Ferber (1982). Here, a man was charged with obscenity after selling two videos of minors masturbating to undercover officers. A jury found the videos were not obscene under the Miller test; the court ruled the Miller test shouldn't apply to CSAM at all. They explained the state has an interest in children's well-being, and, because the production of sexual content involving children is inherently abusive, CSAM is unprotected speech. It doesn't matter if it's "obscene" or not.
The third is Osborne v. Ohio (1990). Police discovered photographs of nude male children in sexually explicit positions while serving a search warrant. The defendant argued he was protected by Stanley -- mere possession in the privacy of your own home can't be illegal. The court pointed to Ferber -- Stanley doesn't apply to material involving children. The thing in your house still harmed a child, and still drives a market that will harm future children.
The fourth -- and this is where the AI part latches on -- is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002). This case involves a challenge to the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act. The law banned any visual depiction that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." A group of adult entertainment artists sued, saying the law was overly broad and would criminalize, among other things, Romeo and Juliet and American Beauty. The Supreme Court agreed. The ruling said the state's interest in protecting children doesn't apply when no real children were harmed.
So, together, the court was stuck. Mere possession of obscene material cannot be illegal under Stanley, and whether or not Osborne applies depends on Ashcroft's question of whether or not the images are real children. In this specific case, the government conceded that the images did not depict real children, and couldn't be tied to any specific real child, so the court fell back to Stanley as the controlling precedent.
The judges think Ashcroft has aged badly. The outcome of "is having AI CSAM illegal?" hinges on a case decided when Lara Croft's pixelated triangle bust was the height of digital technology -- Stable Diffusion is an entirely different animal. But Hutto v. Davis says lower courts aren't allowed to overrule the Supreme Court, even when technology has advanced or the Supreme Court might have gotten it wrong the first time around.
64
46
26
u/not_now_right_now 10h ago
Just a small correction. The ruling addressed both the production and possession and both those charges were thrown out.
Edit: “Anderegg asked for the charges of production and possession to be dismissed, which a federal district court in Wisconsin granted on grounds that these counts ran against decided caselaw.”
13
12
12
u/ShadowForPresident ☑️ 7h ago
This is the context I needed, cuz goin just off the headline is wild but this gives alot of insight to why they ruled the way they did. Damn tho
9
u/DigitalNecromancy 5h ago
It's really, really important to get this context. I'm seeing people calling for blood from the judges, but it really looks like they were dealt an impossible case and did what they could. I'm not happy with how it ended, but I feel like all anger should be directed at the Supreme Court. They're the ones who sat on their hands instead of adjusting the precedent.
41
u/kos-or-kosm 8h ago
I'm a bit worried about this case in this current political climate. I hope it's not used to outlaw all depictions of queer minors on the extremely common bigoted argument that queer people simply existing is "sexual".
This whole AI porn thing has me extremely conflicted, too, ignoring the possible bigoted overreach. I very much don't like the idea of drawings being outlawed, regardless of what they depict, as drawings have no victims. So if AI can generate these images without being trained on CSAM, I don't know what to think. I hate these images, to be clear, but I don't want to fall into the trap of "moralizing my ick". If there's no victim, I'm hard pressed to justify criminalizing something, as disgusting as I may find it.
21
u/Skepsis93 6h ago
Hard agree. If we start policing fictional obscene imagery, then whatever the current power structure deems "obscene" can be used to persecute those they deem undesirable to society. Instead of the Supreme Court overturning previous rulings and entirely re-interpreting the first amendment and freedom of expression, we need congress to act on AI legislation and regulations instead.
9
u/birbhorse 4h ago
super duper agree with you. i hate to use the "slippery slope" argument (or fallacy), but... this is indeed a very slippery slope for a multitude of reasons, especially the one you provided.
i do think it is in the best interests of everyone this finally gets a legal precedent set, but i have major fears it'll be way, way overreaching, and it'll cause a sweeping chilling of free speech.
this situation sucks all around; do nothing and AI generated garbage that looks identical to real CSAM is allowed. do something and the geriatrics will fuck up freedom of speech for decades to come.
7
u/picabo123 5h ago
We already have AI that refuses to translate certain texts to another language if the text is considered offensive by the AI. It doesn't matter for what reason you would want the translation it's just not allowed for some models.
3
u/mads-80 4h ago
If there's no victim
Arguably, every person whose face was used to train the AI on how to generate faces of that type are victims here. Morally, I don't think generating a composite of several faces and rendering it on a naked body is all that different from taking a single face from a specific child and photoshopping it on the body of a porn star.
Even if the AI was trained on porn and children seperately, it knows what children look like from analysing the actual children depicted in images scraped from social media. The result may not directly resemble any one particular individual, but they have been used in the production of this content without their knowledge or consent.
0
u/kamakazi152 6h ago
Even if it's not trained on CSAM it will be trained on the pictures of real children. It needs to be banned.
Even if a drawing is a realistic depiction of a real child, that has a victim if it is ever seen by any single person other than the one that made it.
0
u/kos-or-kosm 5h ago
Even if it's not trained on CSAM it will be trained on the pictures of real children
That's a VERY good point. Thank you for sharing that.
12
u/Dapper_Magpie 8h ago
Either way even if he sent regular porn to a kid his ass should still be imprisoned
19
u/dr_jiang 7h ago
He's still being charged with distribution of CSAM and with sending explicit content to a minor. Federal criminal cases have an absurdly high conviction rate, and there's a whole heap of evidence he actually did the thing.
So yeah, he's definitely going to jail.
9
u/WiredCortex 9h ago
How do you know all this? I’m just impressed by the explanations and how you’re able to boil down the legal cases to simple paragraphs. It’s a skill I definitely want for myself in the future!
32
u/dr_jiang 8h ago
I wish I had a cooler answer, but the truth is I'm just a big dork who dated an assistant U.S. attorney for a while. She was work-friends with "the CSAM crimes guy" in their office, so I got to learn a lot about the surrounding law through dinner party osmosis.
8
3
3
u/YouDoNotKnowMeSir 4h ago
I appreciate the timeline of things but yeah that’s wild and didn’t age well
1
-1
-10
u/Training_Ruin3151 10h ago
Except they're not bound by precedent. Judges rule against precedent all the fucking time. Its literally their job to decide when to. They wanna protect the pedo administration.
29
u/dr_jiang 9h ago
Judges can rule against their own precedent -- that's the key distinction. Circuit courts can overrule themselves, and they do so all the time. But lower courts are obligated to follow the precedents set by higher courts when one exists.
The principle is known as "vertical stare decisis." District courts are bound by the circuit courts above them, who are bound by the Supreme Court above them. In this case, there's established precedent saying how a case like this should be handled. The judges don't agree with the precedent, but they don't have the power to say "The Supreme Court is wrong. Here's the new rule."
-15
u/Training_Ruin3151 8h ago
They absolutely do. It wouldnt even be the fifth constitutional crisis this week. They wanna protect pedos. End of story why lie?
11
u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS 8h ago
The "end of story" would be a shitty ruling that could get overturned in the blink of an eye on appeal and fuck up the court cases of similar cases for years.
-18
133
u/SinglePlayerGamer93 13h ago
All those government officials who said "AI cp is fine" should have their hard drives checked.
70
u/Funkula 13h ago
The same officials who are protecting the child rapist president and the rest of the Epstein class? Forget checking the hard drives, ship them straight to Guantanamo.
12
u/Painterzzz 10h ago
Remember when Twitter was found to be generating and distributing millions of images of cp, and not a single country did a single thing about it?
2
u/YouDoNotKnowMeSir 4h ago
Same officials that also push digital ID and age verification, for the children’s safety...
1
u/_johnning 2h ago
I still don’t understand the rationale behind this. Is it to prevent themselves from being acquitted if theyre caught watching CP?
2
u/YouDoNotKnowMeSir 2h ago
Basically just digital surveillance and control. They want to know who and what you’re doing online, regardless of content or usage. Digital ID/age verification builds that pathway.
7
194
u/TricellCEO 13h ago
Even if we never get laws passed against it, the people who consume it should definitely be put on a watchlist of sorts.
17
u/Vagina_Woolf 11h ago
I suspect theres a lot more of them than anyone realizes.
14
u/Painterzzz 10h ago
Yeah. Look at popular culture. So much of it is geared towards men who are attracted to children.
Remember Britney Spears big breakout hit.
10
u/Noizylatino 9h ago
The count down for when Mary Kate and Ashley turned 18. Or that one chicken who made bank by opening her onlyfans when she turned 18.
11
u/AncientCrust 10h ago
I'm guessing that catching pedos is not a priority with the current administration lol
103
u/DoctahFeelgood 13h ago
The watch list is called ✨️jail✨️. Even if it's AI generated its still illegal to possess it.
30
u/ObserverWardXXL 10h ago edited 10h ago
Apparently in America its not illegal to possess it (illegal to create and distribute still)- except in texas as far as I am aware.
I guess it makes sense since it must be the nation that has most embraced pedophilic leaders. Still comes as a shocker because I thought it would definitely be "written law" but its been conveniently left gray which creates a lot of space, distraction and friction in arguing whether or not CSAM is AI or Real..
9
u/Suspicious-Still-999 10h ago
iirc the court case was because "depictions" would include, like, a sex scene in a romeo and juliet movie (when actors are in their 20s) and such.
also it's weird to judge the age of a fictional character. ofc there's "I know it when I see it" stuff, but the line would be blurry.
i can't imagine any other countries have it illegal either.
6
u/ObserverWardXXL 9h ago edited 9h ago
oh no, many countries have laws prohibiting distribution/sales of fictional characters who "appear underage". (written/illustrated/animated etcetera)
So no 30,000 year old dragons transforming into a 13 year old lolicon just to seduce the main character, no vampires "frozen age", no fictional cub furs.
It only translates to pornographic content, implied scenes are okay. Romeo and Juliet is fine (unless you are showcasing genitals/anatomy). If you cover up characters anatomy its not displaying any pornographic content.
I believe its specifically to remove all possible defenses to hiding REAL CSAM underneath 'fictional' media. Like using an AI filter to Japanese Animify photos etc.
-4
u/Suspicious-Still-999 9h ago
I'd feel reall weird about watching a scene with (apparent visual aged) under 18 characters doing stuffs ngl, don't really care if they have clothes on.
i guess it's good to have those laws. i just hope no one has just casually browsed a hentai site then gotten jail time for some random stuff that isn't obvious.
5
u/ObserverWardXXL 9h ago
They don't go after consumers, unless the consumers are stockpiling and possessing. Its mostly used as leverage to pressure users to expose their sources and dealers, and avoid them from establishing "trade networks".
I also still see lolicon stuff not get acted on all the time. (hentai manga stores) so it is something that seems to only target links to Victim Made CSAM.
1
u/Suspicious-Still-999 9h ago
i guess Australia went after a dude for Simpsons porn. i think that stuff is weird as hell, but it def pops up without my consent. i know that guy had a large collection, but still pretty weird.
that said, it didn't ruin his life exactly just a fine and 2 years probation.
5
u/CornerSolution 4h ago
This brings up a question that people have been debating for a long time. Does pornographic material that fictionally depicts harm reinforce its viewers' urges to commit that harm in the real world, or does it provide a "safe" outlet for them to satisfy their desires, reducing their urges to commit real-world harm?
I genuinely do not know what the answer to this question is, and yet as I see it the right thing to do hinges crucially on that answer. Because if it's the latter, by criminalizing or otherwise punishing people for consuming fictional CSAM, you're going to inadvertently increase the amount of actual real-world CSA, and if even one additional actual child is assaulted as a result, that to me would be intolerable.
2
u/TricellCEO 4h ago
I honestly think it depends if they view said material as an addiction or not, even if it's the most minor forms of addiction.
For instance, I am into a lot a of...unusual things. Certainly nothing illegal, but very odd things, and even I find myself "chasing the dragon" so to speak. The law of diminishing returns, as an economist would put it.
So if they have the same mindset as me and don't at all try to shake that harmful attraction, they are likely going to continue to want to escalate.
2
u/CornerSolution 3h ago
That could very well be. Truthfully, I suspect it will depend to some degree on the individual person. For some people it may create a desensitization that leads to them needing a bigger "fix". On the other hand, for others, consistent gratification from fictional material may be enough to quiet or at least take the sharp edges off the urge to engage in it for real.
22
53
u/Nkosi868 ☑️ 12h ago
Context: The judge had no choice but to make that decision as it was already decided by the Supreme Court in the past based on not criminalizing artwork. Obviously they weren’t anticipating AI at the time.
26
u/Delvaris ☑️ 12h ago
They actually sort of did. However they determined in the Ashcroft case that specific issue of it being so realistic it was essentially indistinguishable from reality was a "cross when we come to it." Because the the restriction on the first amendment was unsustainable when no identifiable child was being harmed.
Note that was 21 years ago so that was a pretty reasonable stance on balance.
27
u/NoCarpenter9791 13h ago
When's the next Excinction level comet/asteroid due? I think we need our own do over
2
20
u/scottbgvu812 12h ago
this is so when the files leak and you see the pics they can say they are AI
10
6
u/FatWithMuscles 9h ago
Elon fighting for the right to let grok undress photos of children says almost all about him and that "friendly" salute from the heart to the people says the rest
9
8
u/darkflighter100 12h ago
Our family uses an app called FamilyAlbum to post photos of our kid. You have to be invited to the group to see the photos and make comments on them. It's very useful for us as both myself and my partner come from two different countries and live in a third, so this is the compromise we made to post our photos online while also protecting their privacy. It's great because relatives and close friends can see our child and follow along in our lives. I would recommend it if you're in a similar situation to mine.
2
u/iki11dinosaurs 8h ago
Who owns the app?
2
u/darkflighter100 7h ago
Just looked it up and it's owned by a Japanese technology company called MIXI.
5
u/Morlock19 ☑️ 4h ago
i'm so glad people are finally realizing that posting your kids on social media - ESPECIALLY FOR CONTENT - is weird and gross.
12
u/puzzlebuns 7h ago
As far as I know, CP is illegal because a child has to be exploited (abused) to make it. If no real life child is involved in its creation, like a drawing, then is it abusing someone? Because the way I figure, if the sickos are getting their fix from that, then they arent seeking/producing stuff that abuses real kids and the market for real CP will hopefully collapse/shrink. Maybe Im wrong?
5
u/BigPoopsDisease 9h ago
Even if I was okay with people posting their kids I wish they'd still be more discrete. I dont need an album of your baby in a diaper with his blow out all over the place. "Baby's first blowout" go clean your kid
2
u/Skeptikmo 5h ago
Saw someone post an image of their baby they fed into AI just to add the words “7 months” into it… hope that was worth having fed your child into the machine. I really want to say something, but it’s too late anyway, and I imagine I’ll just be yelled at for having the sense to know what they’ve done.
5
u/Pleasant_Ball3192 11h ago
I keep my kids' photos on a private server. All files are encrypted with ChaCha20 and AES. Zero files on social media or the cloud. I've been doing this since they were born. Family relatives are always complaining, but the world is not the same as it was 20 years ago.
2
u/spunkychickpea 9h ago
What data are they training the AI on that allows it to competently generate fake child porn?
It’s probably real child porn.
2
1
1
u/Realistic_Effort6185 7h ago
It's the road map against/showing what those in power are doing. If there's a law protecting painting a baboon's bottom while self pleasuring guess how many billionaires (or their pet senators) are doing it.
1
1
u/DarkHeartBlackShield ☑️ 4h ago
Guess I was ahead of time. Son turned 26 last month. The first time I posted him on social media is when he graduated high school. My older sister, on the reg, wil post her grandkids - even when my niece says no.
1
u/Wiseguy4252 2h ago
Yep. Especially since AI only creates images from content that already exists. So it’s just an amalgam image of actual children….
•
1
u/noishouldbewriting 10h ago
I already had a problem with the parents who use their children who are funny or talented for content. The parents aren't talented, they just have the kids. But now with the AI stuff, I really question some of these people.
1
u/Dangerous_Bathroom42 10h ago
I’m very big on not posting my son or any kids of social media, if I do it’s in my story or in my close friends. Although my page on IG is private. I worked with S. Offenders and you can’t tell who is or isn’t.
0
0
0
-7
-12
u/Dudewhocares3 10h ago
That judge needs to be put on a sex offender registry
Unfortunately that applies to the current administration as well so instead he’ll just be supported by Trump
1.0k
u/ThatBookwormHoe 13h ago
People shouldn't post their kids on social media at all unless they're old enough to consent and have had education on the dangers of people online.
These family channels/social media posters disgust me. They're not saving your videos because your three year old in a teeny tiny outfit is being silly and funny. I fear we'll see many a lawsuits in the next decade once these kids are old enough to see they're being exploited too.