[djoldman]

I am not a lawyer.

There is something ironic about US laws that attempt to prevent crime A by outlawing action B. For example:

  * A: physical sexual abuse of children. B: possession or distribution of CSAM
  * A: drug trafficking or tax evasion. B: structured cash withdrawals

The irony is that the more B is prevented, the less A can be detected and the less B can be used as evidence of A.

It's my understanding that conviction of CSAM-related crimes do not require any physical act to have ever occurred to any real person: one can be convicted of CSAM-related crimes related to paintings/drawings/created_art of fictional people.

It's my understanding that one can be convicted of structured withdrawals that are not driven by, linked to, or in any way related to anything nefarious.

[ux266478]

> one can be convicted of CSAM-related crimes related to paintings/drawings/created_art of fictional people.

This isn't necessarily the case in the US, though I believe only for drawings. AI-generated CSAM probably wouldn't fly in a court of law.

Regardless, it's a naive conception of a system of law to think of it as a utilitarian system of restitution in contexts of "this individual harmed this individual". In fact, that would fall under the category of a "tort" rather than a "crime". The law is just as much about enforcing social mores and norms as it is about dealing with individuals harming each other. Hence why locales like Canada outlaw all forms CSAM, even fictional ones. The victim taken is to be society itself. The possession of this material, implicitly entailing enjoyment of it, is so gross a violation of society's norms and mores that it becomes elevated to a legal matter.

[engeljohnb]

> The law is just as much about enforcing social mores and norms

This shouldn't be the case in a society that supposedly values liberty.

[Exoristos]

There is no _society_ without _social_ mores and norms.

[engeljohnb]

I'm not denying they exist, I'm saying a society that values liberty shouldn't enforce them by law.

[RIMR]

This is an argument I find myself making depressingly frequently to people I thought knew better...

[voxic11]

For drawings it has to additionally be "obscene" (since obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment). And there is also a specific law that criminalizes even non-obscene realistic computer generated imagery.

[Manuel_D]

Not quite. There can be more restrictions on the distribution or promotion of obscene material, but mere possession of obscene material is protected by the first Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia

The reason why the Supreme Court upheld bans on possessing CSAM is not because it's obscene, but because it incentivizes abuse of children to produce it.

[voxic11]

Stanley v. Georgia considered the question from the right to privacy side, not the first amendment. The relevant cases are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... and United States v. Williams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003#Supreme_Co...

[RIMR]

This is an extremely important point to understand. At face value, it can feel like CSAM should be protected speech, however repulsive. There are no laws against gore videos, though one might argue that death is worse than SA. However, we have substantial empirical evidence that CSAM directly contributes to offending behavior.

We also acknowledge that participating in pornography requires consent, and that the continued distribution of nonconsensual pornography constitutes a continuing crime against the unwilling subject. Because children have zero legal capacity to consent, CSAM is de facto illegal.

It misses the point to think that CSAM is illegal because it is "obscene". It isn't illegal because it's disgusting; it's illegal because it's egregiously harmful to children. It's like thinking the bad thing a murderer did was make a mess.

[rootusrootus]

> It misses the point to think that CSAM is illegal because it is "obscene".

Are you sure you're not the one missing the point here? You're replying to the tail end of branch of discussion about AI-generated imagery. Obscene is the only argument that works against it.

[RIMR]

Most of the people getting busted for AI-generated CSAM aren't just prompting an AI to generate inappropriate images. They are running pictures of real kids through nudifying apps.

Nonconsensual pornography is nonconsensual pornography. If a real child is involved, it is criminal.

With that said, purely AI-generated CSAM, while certainly disgusting, does pass the test for free speech, in that there are no victims and it is purely offensive, not actually damaging.

[inigyou]

How is obscenity defined? "I know it when I see it" i.e. "anything I think doesn't deserve first amendment protection"?

[goalieca]

Our society is pretty aligned that distribution is another kind of harm. Non-consented distribution of sexual images (eg: revenge porn) is also a crime. Children don’t need to be the ones to press charges in child porn unlike with adults. That’s a good thing.

[ux266478]

> Our society is pretty aligned that distribution is another kind of harm.

As well as possession. I don't actually know if those are different for CSAM, but I would assume so because they are for drugs.

[djoldman]

Meh, I assume "possession" (of drugs) is how the law is worded because otherwise law enforcement would have to catch someone in the act of using or distributing, which must be much harder to do.

Mere possession of a substance is surely not what society cares about.

[cataphract]

It surely is, but that doesn't change the fact that many cases are not about distribution and the harm is frequently more of a legal fiction, unless by harm you mean something other than suffering inflicted on the victims. I don't necessarily think it's wrong for society to ban certain acts on purely moral grounds (another example: incest between siblings), but let's not pretend it's something else going on.

> Non-consented distribution of sexual images (eg: revenge porn) is also a crime.

There is very compelling empirical evidence that this causes actual harm (suicide ideation in a very big fraction of the victims), even if it is fictional, so here there is no question about the harm.

[mannanj]

> CSAM (“see-sam”) refers to any visual content—photos, videos, livestreams, or AI-generated images—that shows a child being sexually abused or exploited. Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) is not “child pornography.” It’s evidence of child sexual abuse [1]

I can't wrap my head around how AI-generated imagery is evidence of child sexual abuse (CAS). How are you abusing a real child by generating an image of a fake one?

[1] https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abus...

[ipython]

what about an AI generated image using the real face of a minor? That can (I would argue will) cause real damage to the real child.

[anticensor]

That's CSM, not CSAM.

[mannanj]

Agreed. I think this answers your question ipython. Do you agree?

[pushcx]

No. In short, in US law, CSAM is a visual depiction of a real-world act of child sexual abuse. Visual depictions like you're describing are covered under a different law, and I'm not aware of it having a short name. There's a good expert thread on this with links to the relevant federal laws here: https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3lbt7zkvlq...

[djoldman]

Currently it is explicitly against the law[0]:

  (a)In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
    (1)
      (A)depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
      (B)is obscene; or ...
  (b)...
  (c)Nonrequired Element of Offense.—
  It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

[bsimpson]

I wonder how you'd actually go about prosecuting that. What's the line between crass and illegal?

People have infantilization fetishes - where they wear diapers and shit. You can certainly imagine someone making a cartoon of that in a sexual way.

Adults often don't look their ages. John Mulaney famously had a set about resembling a child when he was 29.

What if someone generated an image that looked like a teenager, but there was a driver's license in the frame that said the person was an adult?

Real people have ages. Imaginary people are imaginary.

What about art from the antiquity when what we would call a teenager would have been treated as an adult? Surely someone painted people having sex before "the age of consent" was a well-defined term. Is it illegal to own that painting?

[inigyou]

Apparently audio child porn is allowed huh?

[joshred]

I don't think these are the same. Outlawing CSAM gives law enforcement the ability to shutdown markets and prevent commercial distribution of CSAM. Sexually abusing children is heinous, but sexually abusing children for financial gain is even worse.

[IncreasePosts]

There's also the argument that CSAM can act as a gateway leading people from just being a pedophile in their head, to going out and doing something to some child.

[MichaelDickens]

Yes, this is an argument that exists. But it's not supported by evidence. It's the same as the old "video game violence should be outlawed because it might cause real violence", which is just as unsubstantiated.

[ButlerianJihad]

Yeah, that old canard is ridiculous!

I mean, if there were any truth to it, surely our nation would have seen an uptick, in the past 30–40 years, of new generations picking up guns and just mercilessly mowing down soft targets as if playing GTA.

Thankfully, that is all confined to fantasy in cyberspace!

[john_strinlai]

gta is played all around the world yet only one country is an outlier in mass shootings.

perhaps there is more to it?

[Ardon]

Yeah, /your/ nation maybe. I wonder if there's any other reasons that could explain this, especially given the pretty uniform distribution of video games, and the extremely uneven distribution of violence.

Oh, and everywhere in your nation? At the same time?

Sorry, I think I have a button.

[ButlerianJihad]

https://youtu.be/g7tII_3WXqo?is=MagnO5GswnVJJltM

Mother Shares How Video Games Radicalized Her Son to Run Around and Pick up Coins

[tancop]

school shootings happen when lonely boys with mental health issues a) have access to guns and b) feel like society failed them and they need to take revenge.

the first one is the reason why it happens it america more than any other place. other countries also have youth unemployment and social isolation but they show up as bullying in schools or votes for fascist parties instead of mass murder.

the actual problem is people feeling hopeless, like theres no way they could ever be successful in this world so they want to burn it down. thats why some of them turn violent, when you feel like nothing you can do will make life better the only thing left is making it worse for those you think are responsible, like your classmates or gay/queer people or Jews.

none of this comes down to video games, feminism, rap music, violent movies, atheism or other cultural "problems" conservatives always like to blame. its a social issue that needs social solutions.

[inigyou]

> fascist parties

you mean anyone who isn't 100% all-in on globalism?

[pembrook]

Yes, it’s an argument but there’s zero data to support it, in fact the opposite.

If this were true then widespread availability of pornography on the internet would have resulted in a massive increase in rape of adult females. When in fact, assault numbers have been on a steady decline for decades.

[IncreasePosts]

Why would general pornography lead to rape? Most pornography is not rape pornography. Would people watching a bunch of rape pornography lead to more rapes? I don't know, but that seems more likely than general pornography leading to rapes.

60% of respondents who were found looking for CSAM on the dark web stated that they were fearful that consuming CSAM would lead them to do something to a child in real life: https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v1i2.29

[pessimizer]

> Most pornography is not rape pornography.

I'm not taking a position here, but the total amount of pornography is irrelevant to the argument. If the amount of rape pornography available has increased 500x as the total amount of pornography has increased 5000x, the proportion of pornography that was rape pornography has been reduced by 90%.

> 60% of respondents who were found looking for CSAM on the dark web stated that they were fearful that consuming CSAM would lead them to do something to a child in real life

Someone looking for child pornography is somebody looking for child pornography, so their opinion about what the search might lead to seems a bit worthless. There's no reason to assume that they have any insight into what will happen next, but we know for a fact what has already happened.

That out of the way, though, and assuming that child pornography leads to child abuse, the good pro-pornography case that has been made is that when pornography is suppressed rather than regulated, the 95% of people who are exclusively interested in adult pornography will have to go through the same underground channels that child pornography flows through, thus having the perverse effect of exposing more people to child pornography (or at least obtaining access to it.) If exposure to child pornography causes child abuse, then the suppression of adult pornography would then lead to more child abuse.

[pembrook]

Does it need to be said that by making all pornography easier to access the internet obviously makes rape pornography more prevalent and easier to access as well?

Hence your theory should be easily visible in rape statistics, yet it’s the opposite.

[IncreasePosts]

It would be easily visible or not visible in the rape statistics if the world had a single variable. In any case, even if the world was extremely simple, 'rape porn' could increase rapes, and we could still observe a decrease in rapes if 'general porn' decreased the odds of rape to a larger degree than rape porn increased them relative to the population that consumed each.

[carljungslabtek]

There are even people involved in commercial distribution of it that claim to not even be interested in children, just in profit or even allegedly “for a sense of community” (someone actually said this after getting caught, he was in his 20s but I can’t remember his name — he might have been one of the red room guys).

On top of that, while there are different types of child abusers, the worst ones almost invariantly collect CSAM to the point of hoarding. So it really isn’t that bad of a proxy.

The root comment is implying that legalizing or decriminalizing csam would somehow help with prosecution of child abuse? I’m kind of speechless. Csam IS child abuse. The fact that there are consumers encourages producers to, well, produce!

[Manuel_D]

At least in the US, fictional content is legal even if it depicts minors sexually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...

There have been a handful of convictions based on fictional content, but usually the defendants also possessed real CSAM so there wasn't much point in contesting the charges over fictional images.

[arijun]

Clicking on a page linked in your article, the PROTECT Act of 2003[1] (passed a year later), I see:

> The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against obscene illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography... had been ruled unconstitutional... The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requirement under the Miller test or the variant test noted above to overcome this limitation.

Which, if I'm reading it right, means that GP was correct in saying "conviction of CSAM-related crimes do not require any physical act to have ever occurred to any real person"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

[Manuel_D]

But crucially:

> However, the court did not reverse its holding in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as to virtual child pornography which is not obscene under the Miller standard

[arijun]

Unless I’m misunderstanding it wrong, any kind of porn would pass the first two prongs of the Miller test: it’s for purient purposes and it has depictions of sexual acts. As for the third prong, I’m sure some porn out there has literary merit, but I would guess the vast, vast majority would not.

[Exoristos]

> virtual child pornography which is not obscene

Does it surprise anyone else that this is a legal possibility?

[rootusrootus]

I get a little twitchy anytime we have laws based on something like obscenity, which is by definition a moral judgement.

[inigyou]

It isn't possible, it's a fig leaf to avoid the law being ruled unconstitutional, but doesn't change the law itself.

[laughing_man]

It's even worse than that. If you make withdrawals with the intent of evading currency reporting requirements you've committed a crime even if the withdrawals don't constitute structuring.

Also, in regard to the fictional CSAM depictions that stuff is still wending its way through the courts.

[kimjune01]

a 17 year old can take a nude selfie and be charged as an adult in possession of CSAM

[mannanj]

A: cyber crimes or other digital crimes. probably applies to many of the other crimes you mentioned too. B: privacy

[kmeisthax]

I don't think there's a particular connection between indirect enforcement mechanisms and inability to detect the crime, though:

- Structured transactions are illegal because we put a minimum on the amount of cash that has to move before government financial surveillance applies. The alternative (at least, one acceptable to the state) would be that the government knows every transaction you make[0] no matter the size. Since we don't want that, it has to be illegal to lie about the size of a transaction. Furthermore, the harder it is to get away with structuring your transactions, the more legible the financial system becomes and the easier it is to catch drug dealers.

- Pedophiles have not stopped possessing or distributing CSAM to reduce their legal liability. Actually, this argument ignores the main reason why pedophiles store and trade CSAM around in the first place: it's specifically to scare victims into silence and revictimize those who tell the cops. In fact, this is why we stopped calling it "child porn" and started calling it "child sexual abuse material" - because it is specifically material designed to sexually abuse children by way of it's mere existence.

If you're a "no touch" pedophile (they do exist!) that's still trading real CSAM around, well... Congratulations, Nobuhiro Watsuki, award-winning author of the hit samurai manga Rurouni Kenshin, you're still doing the dirty work for the full-contact pedo who recorded the damned thing.

As for drawn child porn, involving fictional characters (i.e. not CSAM), it is legal in certain jurisdictions. Notably, America, where the 1st Amendment errs on the side of creative expression[1]; and Japan, the thinking man's Epstein Island, where... I actually don't know why the fuck Japan is so weirdly tolerant of all this sick lolicon trash. Hell, Watsuki didn't even get cancelled when it came out he had 100 DVDs worth of actual CSAM.

There's an additional layer to this, though, in that for all the crimes you brought up, there's been a history of active state complicity in the crime:

- The CIA is a drug trafficking gang that happens to moonlight as a government intelligence agency

- A good chunk of elected officials and heads of state in multiple countries were compromised by notorious child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein

- The government doesn't pay taxes. I mean, obviously, they're the ones levying them.

We like to think of law enforcement as a cat-and-mouse game: criminals do a thing and law enforcement tries to hunt them down within the bounds of 4A/5A. The reality is more complicated. There are cases in which governments actively collaborate with organized crime, either because the government is corrupt as sin, or because the criminals are offering the state a way out.

[0] Fun fact: if you use Bitcoin, you're automatically opting into this.

[1] To be clear, while I agree with the American argument, you still shouldn't actually expose yourself to this kind of porn, because you're training yourself to get horny around kids. I shouldn't have to say this, but just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's safe to use.

[djoldman]

> As for drawn child porn, involving fictional characters (i.e. not CSAM), it is legal in certain jurisdictions. Notably, America, where the 1st Amendment errs on the side of creative expression

As I noted in another comment:

Currently this is explicitly against the law[0]:

  (a)In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
    (1)
      (A)depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
      (B)is obscene; or ...
  (b)...
  (c)Nonrequired Element of Offense.—
  It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A