This article is regarding a recent case involving Anderegg from Wisconsin, who was charged with creating, possessing and sending AI images of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct that were declared “obscene”. Anderegg was caught because he sent some of the “obscene” images to a minor over Instagram.
The district judge declared that the possession charges should be thrown out as they contravene both Stanley v. Georgia (1969) and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002). It was argued that the jurisdictional hook of 1466A was overreaching, and if allowed to cover anything that is on the home on the pretext that it travelled in intersrate or foreign commerce, it would render Stanley dead letters.
Honestly it’s refreshing to hear this, as many times judges have been erroneously siding with prosecutors on this issue. I hope that the appeals court does side with the defense and the district court. Here is the link to the article:
While I agree with the charge for transferring the images to a minor, I don’t see how the charge for production was upheld. Using prompts to “draw” an image is still a form of free speech.
Same here. I think production is protected because possession is. And I hope one day they address the issue of possession vs “receipt”, because saying that “receipt” charges are constitutional even if possession charges aren’t sounds like a whole load of bullshit to me. The whole jurisdictional hook thing seems like an excuse. Just because you have jurisdiction does not mean it’s constitutional to criminalize. It just means that’s an area where you could potentially take action if legal.
Sadly, such a ruling couldn’t happen in the UK. The law, for many years, has prohibited “pseudo-photographs”, which means any image that could be taken for a photograph, constructed pictures (e.g., several photos spliced together), and so on, so AI-generated material would come under this.
He should be charged with sharing it to a minor, but the AI pics are not much of a big deal as people make them to be. It’s private property, like everything we daily consume.
I actually got a copy of the court’s decision, and I hope he appeals it. The court said it was legal to possesses, but stated the creation didn’t fall with in Stanley v Georgia stating:
“But the court will decline to extend Stanley to the production of obscene virtual child pornography charged here. Stanley was a narrow holding written against the backdrop of the longstanding general rule that obscenity is unprotected speech that the government may regulate or prohibit. See Roth, U.S. at 492. Stanley doesn’t mention production, but focuses solely on possession. And even that right isn’t absolute after cases such as Osborne, allowing the restriction of obscene material if it is child pornography. If broader protection for production of obscenity is implicit in Stanley, the Supreme Court hasn’t recognized it over the subsequent decades. The court concludes that the private production of obscenity does not fall within the zone protected by Stanley. The motion to dismiss Count 1 is denied.”
So how are supposed to possess it if you can’t get it through interstate commerce and you can’t make it at home
It’s the same thing they did with marijuana years ago. You needed a permit to possess or sell it or something? But you needed to prove you had it to get the permit. Now because you had it and didn’t have the permit, you broke the law. Bassackwards!!