CP legalization on its way, thanks to AI - or could it get worse?

[AtosW]

(I actually wrote this 2 years ago for another forum, but it's still highly relevant today.)

As you might not know, but should, realistic AI-generated images have gotten really good in the last few months, including some rather erotic stuff. We can already get tons of child nudes from them just by asking for it, and it's certainly possible for all-out graphic CP generators to appear soon, which leads to some possible consequences worth thinking about.

Drawn CP images are already illegal in some countries - unfortunately, the trend is not positive for us, and it's actually been criminalized in more countries in the last 20 years. For these locations, it doesn't make much of a difference. But for those places where so called "drawn CP" is legal, which is of course not CP at all, the rise of AI-generated CP that can't even be distinguished from the real thing, can lead to two different outcomes.

The distinction between real and drawn CP is of course based on the notion that they can easily be told apart. But what if it's so realistic they can't be told apart? We're practically there already, right now. This means investigators can't reliably make the distinction. There is no longer any easy way to make sure it's not real.

So is it legal to produce, or possess this fake "CP" that can't be told apart from the real thing, in countries where drawn CP is legal otherwise? One thing is clear, there is no moral justification for regarding it as real, just because of how it looks.

So either these countries will choose to make drawn CP illegal. Or, it could actually lead to countries starting to consider decriminalization of real CP, particularly if it's non-abusive or can't be linked to an actual case of abuse or force.

Because if you've accepted that drawing "CP" and spreading it is okay, as it still is in many countries, it shouldn't make a difference how realistic it looks. What matters is that they aren't real pictures of actual children, right? So why would you want innocent people doing this harmless artistic endeavour be tried as abusive child rapists, just because their pictures are too realistic?

Part of me really believes this could start a wave of countries reconsidering their CP laws worldwide. But then, it might as well lead to more anti-CP hysteria, against this new dangerous form of child abuse that doesn't involve any actual children! Which would obviously lead to all fictional child porn being banned.

We'll probably see sites like Paheal, e621 and Inkbunny shutting down soon if that happens.

Also, could the hosts of Stable Diffusion, Dall-E etc. be held legally responsible for sending "CP" images from their website? I can imagine the CP squads having a field day with these apps then!

[Talix]

Kind of makes me wonder. What if you took an actual illegal CP image, then added a watermark identifying it as AI generated and put it out on the internet? Maybe even doctored it to give somebody six fingers or something that looks AIish for added effect? Could you muddy the waters enough to cause people to question things?

Realistically though, I don't think AI images will change anything. Weird contradictions have long been a problem with prohibitions on child pornography. Consider self generated images for example. Or the problem of an image of a 17 year old sneaking it's way on to a legal porn website.

Criminal justice systems have long "solved" these issues by muddling by. They selectively prosecute to avoid cases with self generated images (except when they don't). They absolve websites of responsibility for hosting CP as long as they keep systems in place to try to take them down when they are flagged as underage videos (for the most part). And they strategically ignore porn created by 16 and 17 year olds (except when they don't). I suspect they will muddle by on AI issues in much the same ineffectual way.

[Fragment]

That muddling is particularly harmful because it creates a kind of "two-tier" system of people that escape prosecution and those that don't. Without any clear standard for delineation.

People should know clearly and definitively if what they are doing is legal or not before they do it. Avoiding grey zones and subjectivity is one of few benefits that exist in our current legal system, but it is a huge one.

[BLueRibbon]

Kind of makes me wonder. What if you took an actual illegal CP image, then added a watermark identifying it as AI generated and put it out on the internet? Maybe even doctored it to give somebody six fingers or something that looks AIish for added effect? Could you muddy the waters enough to cause people to question things?

It should be possible for the software to embed an irremovable low-resolution copy of the original photograph for all images that are not solely produced from text prompts, and that low-resolution copy could persist across all files derived from the original. However, this would be unpopular with consumers for a number of reasons, and it could be seen as an endorsement of the production of AI PIM.

A better way to be 'certain' would be to decriminalize all images produced entirely from text prompts. The watermarking would be easier to implement and provide irrefutable proof that the image wasn't based on real PIM.

[Rin]

Part of me really believes this could start a wave of countries reconsidering their CP laws worldwide. But then, it might as well lead to more anti-CP hysteria, against this new dangerous form of child abuse that doesn't involve any actual children! Which would obviously lead to all fictional child porn being banned.

We'll probably see sites like Paheal, e621 and Inkbunny shutting down soon if that happens.

If that happens, that will only be the beginning. Remember that the most widely accepted definitions of lolicon and shotacon don't encompass a specific age limit or range, but rather any character who physically resembles prepubescent or in the onset of puberty individuals. This is extremely important, as there are many loli characters who are canonically over thousands of years old.

Because of this, a worldwide ban on fictional CP would entail much more than banning depictions of underage fictional characters, that would open a pandora's box, which would lead to unsuspected consequences.

[argosy]

I think you are making a fundamental error by focusing on the specifics of child pornography legislation, and fantasizing about loopholes, or even legalization.

What you are forgetting about is that, in many countries, including the United States, enforcement of obscenity laws are the rebound. Despite America's much ballyhooed First Amendment, written materials that are 'obscene' are carved out from First Amendment protections. Over the last 20 years, there have been several precedent-making convictions for hosting text-only 'obscene' stories.

For a period of about 35 years, after the landmark 1973 Miller v. California obscenity case, there were no prosecutions of text-only materials, as prosecutors were loathe to prosecute these cases, fearing they might run afoul of the First Amendment. That changed when George W. Bush was re-elected to a second term -- he had made promises to Christian fundamentalist groups that he would crack-down on pornography and obscenity.

In 2006, we saw the prosecution of Louise "Red Rose" Fletcher; she plead guilty for running her site Red Rose stories, which featured non-illustrated stories of child sexual and physical abuse.

In 2008, Frank McCoy was raided by the United States Marshals service. Despite the fact that he was a resident of Minnesota, he was put on trial in the state of Georgia, for providing links to where obscene materials may be found (i.e. his website, among others). He was put on trial in 2010, and convicted in 2013. He served approximately 2 years in prison. The Court of Appeals unanimously upheld both the guilty verdict as well as the sentence imposed. Frank's appeal to the United States Supreme Court was rejected, meaning that the lower courts' ruling stand and became precedent.

In 2019, Thomas Alan Arthur, perhaps better known by his handle Mr. Double, was raided by the FBI. He was charged under the same statute as Frank McCoy, put on trial, and was found guilty. The Court of Appeal reversed the convictions on one or two charges, but his sentence of 5 years in prison (the maximum) for each of 4 stories, to be served consecutively, stands. His appeal to the Supreme Court was also rejected. So, Mr. Double got 20 years in jail just for 4 stories that he hosted. He got an additional 10 years for other charges, meaning that his total sentence is approximately 31 years in prison. Given that he was about 65 years of age when arrested, he will very likely die in jail.

In 2022-23, Ron Kuhlmeyer was arrested for running a 'child obscenity' website. The US Department of Justice cited the use of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) with Belize in prosecuting this case. Similarly, the MLAT between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States was used to seize the server used by Mr. Double.

If memory serves, Mr. Kuhlmeyer was found guilty and sentenced to approximately 30 years in prison; given his age, he will also likely die there.

About 2 years ago, JD Vance (then an US Senator) stated that he wished all pornography to be banned -- this is the very same JD Vance that Trump has chosen to be his Vice-Presidential nominee.

If Trump gets into the White House again, expect things to get materially worse in the United States.

[BLueRibbon]

Argosy, would you be willing to write a guest blog about US obscenity laws/prosecutions related to CP?

[argosy]

Argosy, would you be willing to write a guest blog about US obscenity laws/prosecutions related to CP?

Sure. I've only given the briefest outline in my posts above -- there is lots of detail that I left out.

[mylittlegirl]

AI is a failure so far, there is censorship. We can't talk with AI about any sexual subject. AI is absurd those days. Is banning anything related to minors. Non-pedophiles will shut down everything related with child porn.