MAP Forum

Five top Democrats on the Maine Legislative Council voted AGAINST a bill that would ban ai-generated child porn

The vote kills the bill from reaching committee, so it will not even receive public debate

House minority leader Billy Bob Faulkingham can’t believe it… “Well, that was interesting. Just got out of leg council today where I'm in Augusta. We were voting on bills — but the one that really blew my mind was a bill sponsored by a Democrat that would prohibit child pornography created by AI.

And of course, even though a Democrat sponsored that bill, I voted yes for it because I think child pornography is absolutely disgusting no matter how it's created. Unfortunately, that bill failed to get entered into the second session because the majority of Democrats voted against letting that bill in, even though it was sponsored by a Democrat.

I don't understand the reasoning why you would not want to go against child pornography, but that actually happened today”

I voted yes for it because I think child pornography is absolutely disgusting no matter how it's created.

I voted yes for it because I think child pornography is absolutely disgusting no matter how it's created

Bookshelf wrote: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:13 pm

I voted yes for it because I think child pornography is absolutely disgusting no matter how it's created

The rationale behind banning child porn is that it uses real children, and it apparently re-victimized the child every time it's consumed. People also believe consumption contributes to its production, ie putting more children at risk of being victimized.

If you have a way to create realistic child pornography without ever involving real children, you circumvent practically every risk put forward by "experts" in this field. Countless children would be saved (by anti-c / anti-cp standards) and content involving real children would eventually be diluted, reducing how many people consume material involving them.

Should someone claim to genuinely believe in the legal rationale behind prohibiting child porn, there are two possibilities if they therein uphold the opinion in this article:
a) They want a harmful industry to exist for some reason, and they want real children to be the subject of child pornography, or;
b) They don't actually genuinely believe in the legal rationale, and are just using it as an excuse to justify their disgust. They don't care how many children are involved and don't care about the effects. They just find it icky, and if real children need to suffer to satisfy their disgust, then so be it.

Someone that genuinely believes child pornography is inherently harmful would be doing everything they can to find alternatives so that fewer people consume or create it. If your representatives aren't doing this, then they either don't believe it or don't care.