Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Manuel_D 7 days ago
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.
2 comments
voxic11 7 days ago
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...
link
RIMR 7 days ago
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.

link
rootusrootus 7 days ago
> 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.

link
RIMR 1 day ago
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.

link