[twosdai]

> no children were sexually assaulted

Generating pictures of a real child naked is assault. Imagine finding child photos of yourself online naked being passed around. Its extremely unpleasant and its assault.

If you're arguing that generating a "fake child" is somehow significantly different and that you want to split hairs over the CSAM/CP term in that specific case. Its not a great take to be honest, people understand CSAM, actually verifying if its a "real" child or not, is not really relevant.

[johnnyanmac]

>actually verifying if its a "real" child or not, is not really relevant.

It's entirely relevant. Is the law protecting victims or banning depictions?

If you try to do the latter, you'll run head first into the decades long debate that is the obscenity test in the US. The former, meanwhile, is made as a way to make sure people aren't hurt. It's not too dissimilar to freedom of speech vs slander.

[ben_w]

> Is the law protecting victims or banning depictions?

Both. When there's plausible deniability, it slows down all investigations.

> If you try to do the latter, you'll run head first into the decades long debate that is the obscenity test in the US. The former, meanwhile, is made as a way to make sure people aren't hurt. It's not too dissimilar to freedom of speech vs slander.

There's a world outside the US, a world of various nations which don't care about US legal rulings, and which are various degrees of willing-to-happy to ban US services.

[johnnyanmac]

>There's a world outside the US

Cool, I'm all for everyone else banning X. But sadly it's a US company subject to US laws.

I'm just explaining why anyone in the US who would take legal action may have trouble without making the above distinction

Definitely a core weakness of the Constitution. One that assumed a lot of good faith in its people.

[twosdai]

It, the difference between calling child pornographic content cp vs CSAM, is splitting hairs. Call it CSAM its the modern term. Don't try to create a divide on terminology due to an edge case on some legal code interpretations. It doesn't really help in my opinion and is not a worthwhile argument. I understand where you are coming from on a technicality. But the current definition does "fit" well enough. So why make it an issue. As an example consider the following theoretical case:

a lawyer and judge are discussing a case and using the terminology CSAM in the case and needs to argue between the legality or issue between the child being real or not. What help is it in this situation to use CP vs CSAM in that moment. I dont really think it changes things at all. In both cases the lawyer and judge would need to still clarify for everyone that "presumably" the person is not real. So an acronym change on this point to me is still not a great take. Its regressive, not progressive.

[johnnyanmac]

>It, the difference between calling child pornographic content cp vs CSAM, is splitting hairs.

Yes, and it's a lawyer's job to split hairs. Up thread was talking about legal action so being able distinguish the term changes how you'd attack the issue.

> What help is it in this situation to use CP vs CSAM in that moment. I dont really think it changes things at all.

I just explaied it.

You're free to have your own colloquial opinion on the matter. But if you want to discuss law you need to understand the history on the topic. Especially one as controversial as this. These are probably all tired talking points from before we were born, so while it's novel and insignificant to us, it's language that has made or broken cases in the past. Cases that will be used for precedent.

>So an acronym change on this point to me is still not a great take. Its regressive, not progressive.

I don't really care about the acronym. I'm not a lawyer. A duck is a duck to me.

I'm just explaining why in this legal context the wording does matter. Maybe it shouldn't, but that's not my call.

[XorNot]

It's also irrelevant to some extent: manipulating someone's likeness without their consent is also antisocial, in many jurisdictions illegal, and doing so in a sexualized way making it even more illegal.

The children aspect just makes a bad thing even worse and seems to thankfully get some (though enough IMO) people to realize it.