Caretaker acquitted from possession of fictional (AI) material

News
1

Google-Translate-Link:

A man working as a caretaker for children in Germany recognized that he is a pedophile and decided to quit his job after coming to terms with himself. He decided to be upfront and told the work agency and his mayor that he quit, because of his sexuality.

This was grounds enough for the agency to report him to the police. They found AI images in his possession. He was acquitted by the court with the following reason:

If, therefore, no sexual violence was actually committed against children in order to produce prohibited material, and instead it is “only” computer- and AI-generated images, the accusation of illegal possession of child pornography files cannot be upheld. The prosecutor concedes. “This does not constitute a criminal offense.” Melina Kossinis pleads for acquittal. Defense attorney Schönekeß closes the file. “This ensures that justice has been served.”

5 Likes
2

this took my breath away.

If only the rest of Germany could be just as benevolent and accommodating for people like this.

may his life be peaceful.

3 Likes
3

It makes the Doll ban look very out of place. Why can someone posess a fictional image, but not a piece of plastic?

Should the constitutional court deny the complaints then a ban on anything will be likely. Even tho this case is exactly the opposite of what people attribute to fiction;

A man interacting with children on a daily basis, consuming fiction in his privacy and he has not assaulted anyone or consumed CSAM. It goes against all the things the anti-fiction crowd argues for.

4 Likes
4

it’s partially why I’m faithful in the German court’s ability to act in accordance with reason. there is no evidence that these dolls drive people to cause harm, while there is no shortage of evidence that they prevent it.

laws targeting outlets like this are premised on typically 2 things:

  1. the desirability of controlling speech which is offensive (viewpoint, emotional, non-factual)
  2. the presumption that they cause harm (objective, concrete, requires evidence)

scientific evidence has continuously found the second premise lacking, yet it goes without saying that these premises are not mutually exclusive. those looking for something concrete to bolster their morality or viewpoint-based prohibitions will intuitively lean towards the claim that they cause harm. it’s also worth stating that any morality or viewpoint-based justifications need not conform to reality.

if we, as a society, are to make any meaningful strides in addressing contact sexual abuse, CSAM consumption, and child exploitation in general, then we should also be willing to moderate emotions and behave objectively. because, surely, if the use of outlets like FSM or CLSDs by those with pedohebephilic interests could heighten risk, wouldn’t you want to have something that confirms that?
a better question would be, would any refusal to accept the position or consensus that they don’t increase risk, or that they even help inhibit risk (having protective qualities) impede the credibility of their desired position?

obviously, the correct position would always be to align yourself and your policies with what is reflective of reality. a society or government that is particularly harsh towards sexual deviance, simply for the sake of punishing deviance itself, is no more credible than a society or government that is, in contrast, permissive towards it but overlooks any associated harms for the same reasons that the opposing viewpoint would have for overlooking any lack of objective harm.

an alternative prediction is that the question of whether such outlets increase risk is that it’s based on the consumer. associations between pedohebephilic sexual interests, hypersexuality, impulsivity, antisocial characteristics typical in ‘dual offender’ populations have created a more narrow profile when assessing or diagnosing risk. CSAM offenders exhibit high levels of sexual interest than those who only perpetrate contact offenses, while dual offenders possess both.
the focus has, in light of these populations, shifted towards them, with some researchers acknowledging that the majority of pedohebephilic individuals can safely ‘get by’ on outlets but these groups with high risk might not, or that it could ‘add fuel to the fire’. this latter position still requires further study, and fortunately, it’s beginning to look like a risk-enhancing quality is not present, even within these groups.
this also begs another question: would a society or government, armed with this narrow outcome that would be favorable to its prejudices, be willing to acknowledge the protective qualities of these outlets in the face of a minority that would not? that is ultimately a question I don’t want to see answered, because it would mean sacrificing the majority to save a minority.
thankfully, it’s not looking like that is the case.

my question to anyone reading this is what would you be willing to believe? and not just believe privately, but openly profess if asked?

there’s also the risk that researchers take on when they delve into this. nobody wants to be known as the ‘pedo guys’, or to have their research picked apart and their name slandered by uninformed political pressure.
if society were more amenable to the nuance that is inherent in the subject matter, like distinguishing between pedophillia and acts of child molestation/rape were more commonplace, would you be comfortable just being ‘real’ about it?

science needs a way to properly insulate itself from that which impedes its purpose, which is to study and inform humanity of the reality.

1 Like
5

I have been real about it in some spaces, and fortunately I have not been shamed or slandered. It did not convince the person I was arguing with (they said “we have to agree to disagree”, meaning they did not have any arguments left), but many people read it and I have seen changes from very hostile attitudes towards FSMs to more on the fence or slightly favorable. This is progress, especially since one of the persons in question is vehemently against “pedophilia”.

6

Problem is that prominent experts all around pedophilia in Germany are against fictional outlets. They propose that a pedophile is and always will be dangerous to children. Their proposal is that “the goal is to not change your sexual orientation, but to control it”. Their only proposed solution is medication that kills your sex drive and conversion therapy that encourages relationship (platonic if exclusive) with adults. It is hard to speak against someone with so much voice in this field even tho he wants to surveillance every single human, because pedophiles do not out themselves. He is hyper-fixated on pedophilia as a risk-factor. Humanity, empathy are all non-existant and the actual evidence ignored.

They just released a book meant for experts showing how to handle pedophilia and it is very shocking. It will only get worse as people who do not wish therapy are labeled as suspicious and even more dangerous. Their desire for pleasure is described as a cognitive dissonance. Anyone rejecting therapy and claiming they can live offense free without therapy is called a liar trying to cope and should be watched by law enforcement.

At the same time they say that stigmatization is unhealthy. It is honestly such an awful read. It only makes sense when you realize that the stigma and lack of differentiation between CSA and Pedophilia being perceived as bad is due to the fact that it prevents people from taking drugs and going to therapy. They say it themselves in the book. Therapists are supposed to fake sympathy to build trust and ease pedophiles into drug treatment. They even calculate hoe many pedophiles might work in the social sector to showcase the imminent danger children face.

It is the most disgusting book I have ever read and it is aimed at professional therapists. So expect more people to treat pedophilia as an illness and a risk.

You can gurantee that the court also listened to these people. I am honestly not so sure what to expect from the upcoming decision. It deals with fundamental questions. The court did say that there is a lower burden of proof if the potential damage is severe. In one case they said that while research shows that CSAM consumers are less likely to become hands-on offenders it cannot be ruled out that consumption can lead to CSA in isolated cases. This same logic can be applied to fiction as it can never really be ruled out as humans are different. This however means that pedophiles can basically be stripped of their sexuality which conflicts with human dignity and sexual self-determination. I know from many that a negative ruling will either prompt their suicide or move to abroad.

1 Like