[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.