How likely are you to be convicted of fictional AI CP?

[oolhlh2]

By fictional AI CP, I mean obvious fictional content involving no real minors.

I don't plan on consuming this stuff at all, but I am concerned over how serious society seems to be treating the whole thing.

Have there been any reports of such people getting convicted for engaging with such content on places like Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, etc? Is the FBI seriously going after such people?

I asked AI chat before and did some research and I haven't found anything substantial, which is a good thing I guess. Most social media cases involve contact with children or the distrbution of PIM, real or AI.

[senseless]

If you're referring to actually clear, fictional content, theres only one case that comes to mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley

[Theendoftheline]

Oh its getting worse and worse, im seeing all these posts in my fb feed now daily of teachers, significant others etc being busted for AI generated content. Its so fucking stupid too because in those comments literally everyone seemingly supports those guys going to prison some even saying "wood chipper" and stupid shit like that. All over no real child actually being hurt.......for the general population its all virtue signaling regardless of what political side they are on its "look how good i am i hate these disgusting pedos and, like loli? roy in fucking prison for cp charges"....

[zarkle]

A Chinese swimwear vendor made an AI video of one of their old 2017 little girl swimwear models. This is something that I never saw happen before. The original model was a little Chinese girl who appeared in a few swim wear fashion catalogs for kids way back in 2017, usually the sales end after several years and that's the end of it. But I guess that company got more of the same swimsuits in stock, but this time they made her the star of the sale again using AI. Breathing new life in a 2017 sale and a child who IRL would be much older.

The AI video depicts the exact same 2017 little Chinese girl walking in a meadow and swimming in a lake in the bright morning sun, and it shows other miniature fairy women and girls interacting with her and cheering her on, a CGI animated fairy plants a flower on her and another little Chinese girl fairy with butterfly wings (but no legs) appears and cheers her on. Kinda weird but adorable.

I suppose under US law the video despite being G rated with no explicit scenes whatsoever can be argued to be ""CSAM""" because of the intent of saving it for sexual gratification and and they could easily prove its of a real minor.

But as usual I must play devil's advocate for people I oppose to make the strongest case for their argument since they are too overwhelmed by visceral disgust to do it. Antis would have a point that sharing (or better yet) paying for images and videos of prepubescents kids being raped does victimize them like they always say, but it is a total baseless to stretch that claim to AI media and swimwear catalogs social media girls and junior idol. and worse law enforcement only talk to the public about the worst cases. The sheriff's office will never discuss junior idol on someone's hard drive or swim catalogs, but they will discuss the worst. Thus showing extreme censorship from authority. While their core claim about paying or encouraging CP actually is true in situational cases "such as adults paying for media of other adults raping prepubescents" it makes zero sense when extended to AI or harmless photos of kids modeling. Especially SEX DOLLS that are illegal in many States and Countries. They are just blanket banning minor sexuality and eroticism and stretching the logic. That just shows special pleading and anti intellectual knee jerk reactions on their part. But to be fair I see their point of AI generated adult prepubescent child sex CSAM can confuse real investigators and I will get to that later.

I think the people that routinely say "every time the image is shared the child is re victimized are applying a pre-Enlightment illiberal thinking, and worse feminist have expanded that common quote to include an additional "little girl trapped inside the image file". They are just looking for confirmation bias to blanket oppose all child erotica and thinking with the same parts of their brain that protect children from dangerous threats and reject rancid food. The moral disgust region and rotten food detection region of the brain (The Insular Cortex). My hope is that one day society reasons its way into a more nuanced view that there is evidence that paying for adult prepubescent child sex material does victimize children but swimwear catalogs, junior idol adjacent content, sex dolls and private AI content harm no child and no amount of special pleading, legal threats and intimidation will change that.

So here is the exceptions I made where I think child porn actually does involve victims, it involves victims if ...

1) you're paying or encouraging adults to have sex or manipulate prepubescent children, this includes live feed sex chats
2) you deceive prepubescent children or teens by lying you are a child/teen to obtain nudes or you threaten/blackmail them (764 tactics)
3) your a privacy invader by filming in private spaces where people expect privacy such as upskirt and bathroom filming
4) you intentionally make fake child rape crime images to deceive investigators that want to help rescue children

While I strongly oppose this recirculating media of child rape, one can argue it falls in the same moral category as recirculating media of gore and torture videos on 4chan's gif board or sites that host gore videos. Its morally sketchy, there may be a small body of evidence it incentives child rape to increase and for Central/South American/Mexican drug cartels to commit violent acts for show to make more gore videos, but it isn't solid data. Its emotional instincts and antis refuse to acknowledge that. Once again I lean in the direction that adult prepubescent contact sex media should be illegal or at least only allowed in private.

The 17 year old on Facebook showing cleavage making the duck face having her public image circulate has none of these victim circumstances, that is just a natural consequence and the same logic applies to videos a little girl posted coercion free of herself twerking on social media to her favorite music. The swimwear girl models and junior idol girls don't think of themselves as victims unless society brainwashes them into thinking that. They don't view posing sexy as wrong until the culture pressures them.

Future societies that are more mature them our current one will make jokes about how so many district attorney's of today constantly recite the same "every time the image is shared the child is victimized" meme. I'm willing to bet 100s of them have done that. Time will show their knee jerk reactions and ultra punitive attitudes are nothing more then visceral disgust reflexes NOT supported by reason and evidence. After all if you are thinking with the same part of the brain meant to detect rancid food and dangerous threats to kids, we can't expect you to reason.


So let me sum up what I said briefly

1) Swimwear shop AI video of a little chinese girl that is entirely G rated can automatically transform into AI CSAM if it is saved for the purpose of getting aroused. Making me deeply skeptical of the re victimization claim due to its broad nature.

2) But I don't completely dismiss my opponent's argument. Instead I deeply entertain their ideas and dissect them. There is a kernel of truth to "every time the image is shared the child is revictimized) but normies blew it way out of proportion into the most absurd lunacy imaginable. I even listed four very broad reasons where the child can be victimized..

3) I separate rape (adult prepubescent child sex) CSAM to other content that isn't even close to as harmful. I also point out law enforcement is silent on non-extreme cases which is a form of blatant censorship.

4) I compare actually harmful CP (adult prepubescent child sex) being shared without paying to gore videos on 4chan and how both can incentivize rapist and violent drug cartels but the evidence isn't clear cut

5) and I conclude " My hope is that one day society reasons its way into a more nuanced view that there is evidence that paying for adult prepubescent child sex material does victimize children but swimwear catalogs, junior idol adjacent content, sex dolls and private AI content harm no child and no amount of special pleading, legal threats and intimidation will change that. "

[oolhlh2]

If you're referring to actually clear, fictional content, theres only one case that comes to mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley

It's extremely unlikely that someone will be convicted of hentai given that sites like AllTheFallen exist.

What I want to talk about really is photo-realism.

[The dude]

If you're referring to actually clear, fictional content, theres only one case that comes to mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley

Thank you for the referral. Upon reading the article, I am now even more convinced that the system of trial by jury often leads to injustice and the twisting of the law, on top of the Milner test being just a plain dumb test when it comes to any kind of fictional content.

[Theendoftheline]

If you're referring to actually clear, fictional content, theres only one case that comes to mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley

Thank you for the referral. Upon reading the article, I am now even more convinced that the system of trial by jury often leads to injustice and the twisting of the law, on top of the Milner test being just a plain dumb test when it comes to any kind of fictional content.

Well yeah it makes sense it does not matter if lolicon is technically "legal" if everyone on the hurry is disgusted by it they are STILL gonna convict for cp the law be damned. Pedos are simply THE most hated group on the planet at this moment even though most hurt no one the meee thought of children "being harmed sexually" even via just art pushes people into a pure caveman savage mindset....

[CantChainTheSpirit]

I wouldn't risk it.

The problem is that the crackdown on real CP has been so effective that you have a bunch of well funded digital crime lea's facing cut backs and lay-offs unless the definition of cp can be expanded. That is literally what is happening, it was drawing but not many people can draw well, now it's AI because anyone can use AI. Jackpot, AIs can produce lots of CP with no victims while killing off any residue CP production, class that as CSAM and those LEA departments are back in business, expanding their teams instead of shrinking them.

Government departments are always having to invent projects and ways to spend money, especially when they're overly successful at delivering something. In IT it's always like that, you never deliver a finished working system because the moment you do you lose your department budget, so you find delays and redefine the problem statement to secure next years budget. It is no different in LEAs. The Internet used to have child modelling sites everywhere, you didn't have to search for anything, it was just there on Google. Then there was an ever growing digital crackdown, now you couldn't find cp if you tried, but the expenditure hasn't gone down, it just keeps going up. Why is that? Well, it's because you widen the circle and redefine the problem statement, an old trick for anyone who's worked in government departments. It was real cp, then it's nudity, then it's sensual clothing, then it's suggestive poses, then it's drawn cp, then it's AI rendered cp, and by cp it can be a kid making a suggestive pose, now in the UK it's adults who look young in porn, and it's erotic writing about kids, next it'll be erotic writing about people under 25 or drawings of people in anything remotely suggestive.

It's better to avoid anything like that because you could have something perfectly legal today, then next year it's illegal and you're retrospectively prosecuted. If you have a picture of the baby Jesus naked in his crib, you might want to think about getting a more modern version where he's in a baby grow

[OnionPetal]

[...] The problem is that the crackdown on real CP has been so effective that you have a bunch of well funded digital crime lea's facing cut backs and lay-offs unless the definition of cp can be expanded. [...]

Yes, 'child protection' is a very profitable industry, in which many 'government' and 'non-profit' workers have enriched themselves. So they try hard to 'prove' how useful their 'work' is, lest the public start to question why so many of these talentless hacks are earning more than engineers.

Government departments are always having to invent projects and ways to spend money [...] you widen the circle and redefine the problem statement, an old trick for anyone who's worked in government departments. [...]

Exactly this. Most of these bureaucrats are more scared of losing their funding, than they are of actual harm to minors. Expose this to everyone who's getting sick of big government, high taxes, and 'government employees' earning more than the private sector, and the logical ones might start to agree.

[Theendoftheline]

If you're referring to actually clear, fictional content, theres only one case that comes to mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley

It's extremely unlikely that someone will be convicted of hentai given that sites like AllTheFallen exist.

What I want to talk about really is photo-realism.

One of the boorus (i wont say which one cause ToS) was actually getting some heat a while back for having photorealistic loli/shota images on their site. Rumor was that some of the more realistic art on there was traced off the real deal, needless to say all that shit was removed.