| > It's images/video of kids being raped, the continued existence and trading of which can be argued to do continuing harm to the victims. I don't think that's what the author is saying. They say that IF any real world kids are involved in the "production" of the video, the image is illegal (have a bad "colour"). Nobody disagrees with that, especially not the author of that blog post. This is contrasted with drawn or rendered images that were created in a computer graphic program. > Or about how nobody is harmed if streams of bits get passed around, it's just data, ones and zeroes, that's not harming anyone. Or that the data is encoded, so it's meaningless without a decoder, a different decoder could decode that bitstream into literally anything else. That's exactly what the author is arguing againts - he says that this is a naive interpretation of computer person, that makes no sense to a lawyer (in his words: color is not a function of bits). I think CSAM is too sensitive topic to use it an example (today, maybe 20 years ago it was different). So my version of that example for 2023: watching and distributing (adult) rape videos is morally abhorrent and often illegal. But porn websites are full of staged rape videos. It's not about the content of the video, but its source (colour). ...that was my explanation of the thought process of the author. As he mentions, not everyone agrees with that interpretation in that context. |
But I think it’s either a sincere mistake or a very poor attitude to bring up consent affecting the colour in relation to CSAM, which they explicitly do about a third of the way into the article.