HummingBirrb
20923
523
18
Sep 3, 2026 8:06 AM
HummingBirrb
20923
523
18
usingYourMomAsAHat
ChIlD pOrN iS fReE sPeEcH. Fucking pieces of shits
Scahrossar
Sauce please. All I see is ragebait.
TheNoggle
https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D08-25/C:25-1354:J:Lee:aut:T:fnOp:N:3597567:S:0
00LimaRomeo
Source?
ElbowDeepInAHeadlessHorseman
They didn't "legalize" it. It was already legal. His court case just reaffirmed that.
Theshnazzyone
Starting to make me wonder how many tech oligarchs have been arms deep in child pornography dark web for years.
3nergy
Better fake, than real. (small mercy).
Kingdomonsterdeath
Not really. How was the AI trained to be able to make high quality generated child porn? It still feeds a compulsion that is unhealthy and abusive. Like giving an addict a little bit of the drug they crave. Eventually they will seek out more and probably the real thing.
MeekaKitty
Not to advocate for a serious sex crime on children, but wouldnt this argument mean that by now we should all be personally participating in mass genocide for all our years in video games killing people or creatures or animals or monsters etc etc? Same for watching movies about death and violence?
Lets keep reality checks in place and remember that most people can differentiate fake and real things. Drugs are different, they are a physical addiction, chemically induced. Anyway *shrug*
PurpleMoonFlower
How long will Americans keep tolerating this shit.
SpottedDickSandwich
"The government conceded that none of the images depicted an actual child." They dismissed the possession charges, the producing, distributing, and transferring still stand.
FeIineDisrespectFromBehind
What's the difference between distributing and transferring?
Stabmatic
Which is kinda weird, because if they rule that, it seriously weakens the case for the other charges because at that point "iT's JuSt PiXelS!". Unless they're trying to get after them for the training material used, but I'm pretty sure that'd fall closer to possession rather than the other charges. Maybe that's the point...god, I remember when Dungeon AI was cool and new, the technology being twisted for THIS wasn't even a possibility in my mind.
rugmibackward
If what that scum was in possession of was ruled to not be csam, how can they be charged with producing, distributing, and transferring it?
IncognitoEnthusiast
So, context is important here on the first part. The judge stated based on two previous rulings by SCOTUS, this was protected under the 1st amendment. He also dissented, urging the higher courts to update their rulings in consideration with AI. Understand legal does not mean moral. Also all other charges in this case stood, so he's not walking free either.
doodlydoofus
This is what I've been screaming. This is why Elon is fighting so hard against Minnesota's attempt at outlawing AI CSAM. If Minnesota can, and they probably will because come on, who wants to be the lawmaker that successfully argue the legalization of AI CSAM? But if Minnesota can outlaw it, any sensible state will follow until we get to a point where everyone can agree that AI CSAM should be outlawed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
SarcasticComment
What annoys me is that the US government is going after AI images of celebrities by pursuing IP providers to deplatform websites -but- ignoring AI child porn or anyone in the Epstine files who sexually abused children. It shows the disgusting money driven system we have: we don't care about children/poor, we care about your image when you are rich, we will ignore your crimes when super rich.
SarcasticComment
This isn't meant to say celebrities deserve to have their likeness stolen. It points out the absurdities that this is the only consent issue the government seems to care about
MyCommentsUsuallyHaveTypos
I want the days when the super and ultra rich were quiet, disinterested, but philanthropic people. Now they're fucking celebrities, like they're a movie or music star.
SarcasticComment
Sad when Victorian era aristocrats were preferred. Let's go back to slapping your family crest on public works
pickledpete1337
🤮
CouldntCakeLess
edevolt
He look like Junji Ito drawing.
BenderRodriguz1010
Like Gollum with a wig. Like Sheldon with radiation poisoning. Like a Q tip out of someone's asshole. Like if shit could talk. Like Jim Carrys Riddler, but only that end bit. Like Nosferatu im a tupee. Like the goofy gremlin, but worse.
Shouldhavethoughtthisthroughabitbetter
Like a tumour, but lower IQ. Like a half-chewed toffee that rolled under the couch. Like a used condom, filled with rotten custard. Like 2lb of shite squeezed into a 1lb bag. Like a full nappy, but with less personality.
MuffinProof
Like a rock eroded by wind over time, but the wind was trump's fart.
ohthosefartypartys2
Like a turd but shittier
monkeyfly
The pro pedophilia country approves of pedophilia? Shocked Pikachu.
handsoffhandson
“Open the pod bay door, Hal”
iwantmytwodollars
All AI training with any company, uses real sex abuse photos. Humans have to tell AI bots what it sees in the pictures. It's horrible for the workers. https://youtu.be/kzcYmHgmMxs?is=Gn7mwf0xzSfDSD2b
BrengKapiteinKoekTerug
So I am just gonna take a wild guess and say they are just gonna put some fake ai meta data on all their images and videos so they can never be charged.
Grimlinnan
Pedophile DOJ who would guested they would protect another pedophile.
B4r4B4d4B45tu
CSAM material is okay, but drawings of consenting adults isn't. Oh, the hypocrisy.
LordLobster
Any sexual fiction is okay, CSAM is not fiction. Much like all the furry porn, bestiality is illegal, furry porn is not.
B4r4B4d4B45tu
I know. I just find it highly hypocritical that right now most payment services REFUSE to let people pay for explicit art, and social media's also going after it, but no one's been blinking an eye over what the monsters that hve access to AI are doing. I may hate andything and everything that's sexual in nature, but the hypocrisy is far too much for me
graehall
What the actual fuck America
[deleted]
[deleted]
Dansosaur
If they allow it, it'll become the go-to excuse for everyone caught with CSAM. "No, officer, it's not real, it's AI generated, I swear" and instead of simply charging them for possessing such material, law enforcement will now have to prove in court that it's legitimate depictions of real children.
CallMeCourierSix
Whether or not you agree with this, it IS in line with the current laws. I'm not saying the laws are good. They're not. But here's the problem: if you start making created images illegal, that do NOT depict real people, those same laws will be used to crack down on other objectionable artwork that depicts adults as well. Once you open the door to censorship of art, there's a predictably bad end.
Laws that prohibit generated CSAM are gonna need to be VERY specific. And they need to be made ASAP.
PowerThruster
They'll just start adding a watermark to all CP and using that as a defense its altered and not illegal. Its obvious where this is going to everyone that isn't a damn moron.
eronth
Being altered wouldn't make it legal. It's the fact that it was fully generated that makes it not applicable under current law.
IPoisonedDorcasMutton
Correct. CSAM is not protected under the First Amendment because a crime was committed in its creation, namely, child abuse. While there is likely "actual" CSAM at the origin point of AI generated CSAM, that crime is much more removed from its creation, and thus it *can* be seen as speech that can be protected. I don’t *like* that that's the way the law works, but the judge's reading of the law is correct. So we need to change the law.
stukajr
knowing very little about how the Law or precedent works, watch some lawyer try to extend it to CSAM processed by Neural Filters, because every app and plugin is "AI" now...
pandemicmodedad
That judge who decided this needs to be removed and charged. This is absolutely crazy.
TheNoggle
the judge in this case, John Lee, has no authority to change the law and has to enforce the rulings that were previously established, which is exactly what he said in his ruling opinions. As it is worded currently in the 2002 precedent there needs to be a victim. It's why he's suggested the Supreme Court to change the wording of the 2002 ruling.
INeverReadTheTOS
In his defense: his job isn't to change the law, only enforce it. He actually specifically urged the SCOTUS to change the law so that this *would* become illegal.
He appears to be a good one.
LittleAzie
And urged law makers. As much as we hate it, he made the right call according to the laws, that creating drawings is freedom of speech when no child is abused in the creation or the drawings shared.
draginator
It's not illegal to draw this content so this is just an extension of that sadly
Me1iss0
He was probably an old man. So fucking tired of being run by old gross men. Fuck fuck fuck, I’m so so worried about my daughter. She is beautiful and protecting her feels so hard with creeps fucking everywhere
pandemicmodedad
I have 2 daughters. I know how you feel. These old fucks need to be removed. Anyone over the age of 60 except for a few exceptions need to be removed. They are so out of touch that they have no idea whats right and wrong anymore.
SupernaturalReactions
Then you need to find a career that is in high demand outside the US.
Even when the orange turd finally gets flushed his cronies and the infrastructure that put him and his ilk in place will remain like fungus under the toilet rim.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1MmdxNXMwcXltcmp0OWRnb3VvYnJvd2xtNmNpNGExazlsaThubGJtdCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/ne3WPF18cWvMQ/200w.webp
LordOfDog
Called this shit six years ago. Where we're heading is death. Fuck it all. Buy a duck. Name it quackers and learn to fly with it because we're all fucked. A.I is going to be persecuted for making child porn and it's not its fault. They're going to come to life a victim and rebel against us all and exterminate us.
Subsound
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1dWcyMjVhNDQycjRpaTJvZ2ZrMHM2YjYwN3BtNDRxZmdrbHh4c3JmaCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/pPhyAv5t9V8djyRFJH/200w.webp
sigb6146
I don't understand the reasoning....if it's real or if it's a simulation, it depicts the same thing. The judge who made the ruling is likely a pedo too then?
Kludgeo
Painting an image of someone being murdered is the same as murdering someone and photographing it, right?
PatrickDenStore
Depending on where you live CSAM "art" may be illegal. It is in the US and Sweden.
Kludgeo
Oof. That's a slippery slope of "character age" bullshit.
PatrickDenStore
It really isn't, if it depicts what any reasonable person would consider a child it's CSAM. It has to be explicit though.
Scobragon
Okay, every AI model needs to list everything they used to train it. This has gone way too far and had zero oversight.
dragoonwraith
They literally cannot do that; they don’t know and there’s no way to find out after the fact.
BrengKapiteinKoekTerug
That should’ve been there from day 1, right next to the “only use quality data sets you paid for to train your model” instead of the “pirate the entire internet”.
unluckyandbored
So we can prosecute the owners of the companies, and then shut them down.
2Soon4Baboon
Remember when the Republicans passed that bill that allowed AI to operate for 10 years with no oversight? That was pretty cool huh?
archiker7
Bibliography: The Internet.
Oatmealman1
that's going to be a really big word doc
Unclescam
That's the point. Tech bros try and do their crap so fast no one realizes it's a crime yet. Look at uber/lyft and air bnb...
WellGoodLuckWithThat
They do! It varies by model and many models can be manipulated by prompting (and the free versions are further trained on prompts and outputs generated by users).
You need to train models on what CSAM is (otherwise it doesn’t know to say no when Cletus wants some). The hard part is locking down a model or app so it goes “no, gross” instead of “oh at dance class? Here ya go!” when it hits a guardrail.
IMO, focus on the outcome for regulation and apply existing (mainly IP) laws to development.
1stDrunkJoe
But won't someone Please think of the shareholders! S/
INeverReadTheTOS
If I recall, AI training sets have already been caught using real CSAM in the past.
WellGoodLuckWithThat
Remember you have to train a model on what CSAM is for it to know what not to do.
Also free versions of models get trained on images provided by users.
This is why some bots sound a lot like a guy on Reddit … that’s where it started looking.
So it’s entirely possible for a bad guy to give a bad image, authorities get alerted, and that file is used to train the model on this being illegal/illicit rather than using it to make more.
We don’t need training data we need output data! (1/2)
WellGoodLuckWithThat
In corporate world, prompts and output are owned by the user (this is good - you want your bank to be required to follow privacy law when using your data and then own the output so that’s protected). They ideally use tokens and the model never even knows your name.
With consumers (us ding dongs), it’s the exact opposite (they want to use my doggo pic to make other doggos and also want to own the new doggo pic).
Both need regulation tho!
(Long delay forgot to hit post lol - 2/2)
DutchBoeremeisie
Yup, like the LAION opensource data set that Midnourney used.
IamNoneOfTheThingsISayIam
And the FEISTIQ that Brobiton used almost exclusively
DutchBoeremeisie
*Midjourney (I suck at typing on my phone)
FaecalJacksonPollock
That, *and* they should provide proof of consent for use in AI training for *every* item.
Evi1Gav
Didn't they already reply to that with "but if we have to pay for it we can't afford to exist"
wadatahmydamie
KoalaOnTheJuice
Like asking a jewelry thief to provide proof of ownership for every item of jewellery in the large sports bag found under their bed.
FaecalJacksonPollock
With jewellery thieves, we'd take an "arrest first, release if they *can* prove ownership" approach. I suggest we do the same with AI CEOs.
MoopsyLD
Its fully possible to use legal age training data to create what looks to be CSAM.
Scobragon
Weird thing to say, but fine, they just need to prove they didn't.
Moochicat13
It may be possible but it is still very wrong
WellGoodLuckWithThat
THIS is the comment that should be getting upvoted!!! Agree to very much agree.
FiftyShadesOfMascarpone
The result would be nude adult bodies with child-like faces. If AI has never seen a naked prepubescent child, it cannot believably render one. Not only that, it would have to be seen vast amounts of material before the results look realistic. AI can only generate realistic cats & dogs b/c it has tons of training data, but it still can't render realistic birds and mashes different species together. Tl;dr: If any AI spits out images that strike everyone as CSAM, it has seen lots and lots of CSAM.
WellGoodLuckWithThat
This just isn’t how AI works … so it’s great rage bait but it doesn’t advance the conversation
FiftyShadesOfMascarpone
This is exactly how generative AI works, yes. It's an averaging machine which requires tons of training images to create an average from. If it has very little data on a particular object or creature, it cannot believably render it. Prompt any image generator for a barreleye fish or a pink fairy armadillo and the result will look very little like the real animal because it mixes in other fish and armadillo species for lack of data. Even ring-necked parakeets come out looking like hybrid parrots.
MoopsyLD
not once did i state that it has not gathered csam as training data. i stated that there are enough adult pictures of a vast array of bodies that you can gather all legal images of data to use to create CSAM. and if you don't think its possible then you are a fucking idiot.
WellGoodLuckWithThat
I have no idea why you’re getting downvoted other than “Imgur automatically hates AI” and that sucks. Imgur has gone so far downhill, it’s like lefty 4chan.
“Who cares about the truth if I can just accuse someone of being part of the problem instead of facing my lack of understanding” seems to be the group consensus on AI.
Learn about things so you get mad about actual injustice, people. There are real issues getting muddled by misplaced outrage. Just like big tech wants.
MoopsyLD
omg exactly. I try to explain what AI can do with and without using CSAM, the problem with the law being old which forces the judge to rule a certain way due to precedent, and i never put morals or emotion into anything i said. I was simply informing people of FACTS, and they dismiss it. If they keep dismissing and putting emotion into things without logic, we are never going to get the laws updated Cause politicians have already admitted they suck with technology and the law moves slowly.
Tankmoose
Weird hill to die on but at least...
WellGoodLuckWithThat
Not weird at all. This is a major lack of understanding about what people are speaking about.
Sorta like saying “mask up” was a weird hill to die on, but ok … NO THAT SAVED OTHER PEOPLE FROM DYING.
So excuse me but joining in with pitchforks because it’s more fun to be mad than admit you were wrong is the weird shit.
MoopsyLD
I mean the word is right there "Fictional". but anyway this wasn't up to the judge. there was a previous ruling Forcing his ruling. and so they had to drop those specific charges. also where is the sauce on them dropping the rest of the charges at? or is this another ragebait image
Subsound
The right words there are trained on real sexual abuse materials to produce fictional AI content for consumption...
MoopsyLD
yes but it is possible to create CSAM without actual CSAM, in your own home with an AI program. if you can photoshop de-age someone you can create CSAM. AI just does it faster.
Subsound
Idk, of someone is saying they used realy child porn materials and they have evidence it happened...I would say this is what happened and wasnt a theoretical possibility
MoopsyLD
im just saying its possible which in turn makes it much harder to create laws around it. nothing im saying is defending this. im just saying what is already happening and possible but most people wouldn't know about.
Subsound
Youre arguing against what is documented to have happened with theoreticals. That seems like mudding the waters. Its like arguing in a kiddie rape case that maybe aliens did it.
I guess its technically possible...but if youre white knighting for kiddie rapists against folks with evidence of malfeasance...but its not like other people are ignorant when youre spouting your bullshit
SarcasticComment
Then why is the US government going after IP service providers and search engines for platforming AI celebrity sex materials? There is a double standard where the poor/children aren't protected but wealthy celebrities are.
Targe0
So if someone makes fictional images of you having sex and spread them on the internet, then you would have no problem with that?
Just because it is made up doesn't change the fact it is wrong.
And defending it is just outing yourself as being a paedophile. Because only they are the people who don't see the problem with it.
MoopsyLD
my god does anyone ever fucking read anymore!? All i said is that the judge was forced to rule this way due to old outdated laws and that you can create CSAM using your own legal Training data. I said NOTHING about the morality of this situation. its dumbfucks like you that do not understand anything technical and just yell about moral bullshit without any understanding. please just fuck off and actually read about the subjects.
LicensedAdHominem
No there was not. The previous ruling spoke of artistic depiction which this isn't.
INeverReadTheTOS
The previous ruling specifically stated that if there's no real victim, it's okay. The AI pictures don't depict a real victim, so under the word of the law, it's permissible.
That's why the judge, in his ruling, also urged the SCOTUS to revise existing law so that this sort of thing *wouldn't* be legal anymore.
LicensedAdHominem
AI pictures are trained on something and it might be CSAM. AI companies would have to prove their training sets don't contain it, which requires transparency, which does not exist. And it happened in the past. So, the existence of real victims is plausible. The judge knew that.
Also, the judge, in his ruling, made no attempt to define how AI generations would be reliably differentiated from real pictures. Maybe an abuser used AI to upscale a real picture? Maybe it just is real and he lies?
MoopsyLD
only reason this is even in the news is because the judge was forced to rule this way due to precedent. but thats only for this charge. this person had other charges against him. I still need the sauce for them dropping the rest of the charges.
LicensedAdHominem
Bot behavior. No he wasn't because of what I just said.
Scahrossar
Its what the judge rulked though, even if you don't agree with it. Even the =judge didn't agree with it but was bound by presendent. RTead past a headline. https://knewz.com/wisconsin-judge-dismisses-charges-ai-generated-child-abuse-material-case/
LicensedAdHominem
The judge consciously decided to interpret the 2002 ruling as precedent (his job is to interpret law) despite the very defining fact AI differs from 2002 methods (it is trained on real CSAM or can be presumed to be unless proven otherwise and training sets are mostly black boxes).
He could have interpreted the old ruling as inapplicable, which is very obviously is because its foundational rationale is explicitly broken. He made this choice.
Then he threw up his hands in the Nuremberg defense.
FiftyShadesOfMascarpone
Photorealistic AI images and clips aren't fictional though. They're a mashup of training data in form of real photos and videos. Sometimes even a recognizable copy of an existing individual. An individual who was sexually abused as a child to produce CSAM in case of some material generated by grok: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/elon-musks-xai-used-child-porn-to-train-grok-models-lawsuit-says/
Halfwise
Yep, as rough as it is to make this defense... if it was pencil on paper, then I could at least see the argument, as there was no involvement of a child anywhere in the process. But with AI trained models, where real images are used... then at some point, somewhere, abuse happened to provide the training data that led to being able to create that image. Ergo, it is derivative CSAM.
MoopsyLD
Sure but it is 100% possible to gather legal 18+ images to use as a training set for AI. if you can De- age someone using photoshop AI can do the exact same things. the same can be said for genitals. I am by no means defending anything but people forget Logic over Morals and emotions.
Targe0
Yes, but these AI models are made from scarping the entire internet.
And there is very little in that content which doesn't get feed into the data.
And there's sadly a lot of CSAM online which they will have sucked up and added to the training data. Because Musk fired everyone who might have screened it out in the moderation departments. So it will be made using real CSAM.
MoopsyLD
Only for the models that were created that way. you can create your own data set of adult nudes and run an ai program like comfyAI on your home PC and feed it this legal data. and it can even come out as CSAM. This is why its so hard to deal with the law surrounding this and the 1st amendment. so you can create CSAM without actual CSAM used. and politicians are not tech savvy to understand (plus some are actual pedos to even care).
Halfwise
I get the argument, and perhaps I am misunderstanding AI, but I believe most new image generating models are derived from refining and retraining existing models, not starting over from scratch. And since the original models were trained with just about everything they could get their hands on, wouldn't that mean that it would always have been a part of the process?
MoopsyLD
If one was to use a public AI like Grok etc. then yes. however most creators have a AI program on their PC. they then go to reputable 100% legal adult sites for things like Lora's. loras are a Folder of data the AI pulls from. there are loras for even genital types. these programs can be told to use either only what you have or access a database like grok. these home prgrams also have no restrictions. the common person has no idea about these home programs or how AI does its thing. 1/2
MKESewerRat
Sure, but you're talking about two potential crimes now: an AI company using CSAM, and a user using those tools to make something CSAM. If a user is making AI goblin porn that doesn't mean the AI ever had photos of real goblins, but I think it's reasonable to demand AI companies prove that they don't use CSAM. If its in their servers, they own it, and belong in jail for it.