I just caught wind of this. It looks interesting.
It appears that a category of AI generated images has been criminalized.
The comment section is rich.
1 Like
Note that it appears Bell had both AI-CSAM and IRL-CSAM. So heās not totally off the hook even if cleared of any charges related to AI.
Some comments in there that I found interesting:
The success of any new communications medium depends on its ability to distribute pornography. Consider the printing press, photography, videotapes, the Internet, and now AI. In his series Tales from the White Hart, the science fiction author Arthur C Clarke wrote a story about an inventor who created a machine that replicates the sensory impressions of people. The first one was of a gourmet eating a fine meal. The next oneā¦ you can guess. He also wrote I Remember Babylon, where he had a (fictional) conversation about China planning to use communication satellites (which Clarke invented) to beam shows (I think his example was a tour of erotic Indian art) with accompanying propaganda directly into peopleās homes. Virtual reality, anyone? My Clarke references are from memory, clarifications and corrections welcome.
Not all pedophiles are pederasts. Some of them suffer in silence, never acting on it. So is AI porn, of any kind, so bad? If it satisfies a pedophile, and harms no one, it seems more of a solution than a problem. I am aware that Bell had other CASM, Iām not referring to that particular instance, especially since, as Nick Anderson writes above. I will forswear judging him. But I think a discussion of AI porn and its implications just might be useful.
AI is not original. AI takes material from the entire Web and combines it into a new image. What needs to be known, I think, is whether the images in question were films, photos, or illustrations. The first two could be based on actual children, or not. Itās getting harder and harder to tell.
I find the timing of this event troubling. Darrin Bell is a great political cartoonist who pulls no punches. Political cartoonists have been dropped from papers, or have left, due to ownersā changed emphases. It is a bad time for them. Political and editorial cartoonists have almost always practiced with targets on their backs. Until we get more definitive info, Iād prefer to think of this as belonging in that area of conjecture.
Edit: already seeing some really despicable comments on Reddit about Bell. Accusing him of molesting his own children, using this as an excuse to be racist towards other black men like Bell, saying that Bell is āfar-leftā and that all leftists support CSAM, etc.
Also something interesting I found: two political cartoons where Bell criticizes the GOP for grooming children:
1 Like
If the statutory language of the law is anything to go by, itās only able to be prosecutable against images that depict/appear to depict āpersons below 18 years of ageā. The statute defines āpersonā as:
āPersonā means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity.
California has precedent dealing with how āpersonā is defined. There was a case back in the early 2010s that essentially found that splicing/photoshopping the likeness of a real minor into sexually explicit situations was not enough to meet the definition of CP, due to issues with the word āpersonallyā affecting the language of the statute.
If the logic of that case were to be applied today, then the phrasing āappears to beā would follow a similar meaning since the statute does not require that said āperson below 18 years of ageā need not physically exist.
I hope this interpretation holds up. People shouldnāt be allowed to sexualize real minors by way of deepfakes or AI images, but that rationale shouldnāt be misapplied to depictions that do not involve real minors or victimization.
2 Likes
The california updated law also has an obscenity test so it is likely to survive challenges.
1 Like
Against AI made with actual persons, yes. But the principles of statutory construction seem to relegate it to depictions of actual āpersonsā, as outlined by the definition contained within the statute. I found this summary of the precedent which supports my research.
The conviction for possession of child pornography is unsupported where the image does not ādepictā an actual child. Section 311.11, subdivision (a) prohibits possession of any image which depicts a child under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct. The legislative history of section 311.11 reflects the purpose of the law was to protect children from sexual exploitation and to criminalize the possession of child pornography. To achieve this objective, and based on the words of the statute, it appears that an actual child must have been used in production and actually engaged in the sexual conduct or simulated sexual acts. To hold otherwise would be to render the word āpersonallyā superfluous and might run afoul of First Amendment protections.
I would concede that the phrasing āappear to beā would be concerning, but itās still constrained by the definition of āpersonā, and its inclusion wouldnāt be superfluous or ineffectual because it conforms with the precedent in Gerber.
1 Like