So I was chatting with GPT about community standards, and I posited this scenario. Imagine that there is a piece of lolicon that was found to be patently offensive and obscene, because it violated community standards, one being that “minors in sexual situations are offensive regardless of how the image is made.” This determination was made by a jury. Now let’s say the same image comes up a year later on a different case, and the jury rules non-obscene, as the community standard was declared to be that only real minors are needed for patent offensiveness. I told GPT this was the same jury. GPT at first said that it was possible for this to happen, but unlikely, as community standards “tend to be consistent”, and require large societal and cultural shifts and different “legal interpretations”.
I told chatGPT that this was erroneous, as community standards rely solely on the judgment of the jury, the triers of fact of a given case. These decisions are made on a district court, which means that the case is not binding to future cases but are merely persuasive. It then softened its stance and said my scenario was moderately possible to likely.
What do you think of this?