|
|
|
|
|
by KaiserPro
161 days ago
|
|
The definition of CSAM is broad enough to cover it: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/child_sexual_abuse_materi... Generating a non-real child could be argued that it might not count. However thats not a given. > The term “child pornography” is currently used in federal statutes and
> is defined as any visual depiction of
> sexually explicit conduct involving a
> person less than 18 years old. Is broad enough to cover anything obviously young. but when it comes to "nude-ifing" a real image of a know minor, I strognly doubt you can use the defence its not a real child. Therefore your knowingly generating and distributing CSAM, which is out of scope for section 230 |
|
What's "person" here? Usually, in law, "person" has a very specific meaning.