Disappointed that it doesn’t have a pink marble facade, with two spherical entry ways, and some nicely trimmed bushes around the base.

I didn’t make any argument and thought I was clear that I wasn’t going to make an argument, one way or another. I also stated that it should probably be illigal though I’m torn on it.

I’m also not a free speech absolutist. There are things that need curtailed. I’m just hesitant to add more to that list as it can easily go too far, depending on who is in power. We see that world wide right now with Free Palestine.

Free speech isn’t just about something spoken, it’s about expression as well. Taking and owning pictures is part of free speech. Limiting porn to 18+ is a great limitation and should not be changed.

It should probably be illegal, but the rational here isn’t great. Something shouldn’t be made illegal just because it makes a detective’s job more difficult.

This is interesting and I’m torn on where I stand. It should probably be illegal, but just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Any curtailing of speech cuts the impact of the first amendment. It’s something that shouldn’t be done lightly.

I don’t like the trajectory it puts us on when the government tries to tell people what is and isn’t allowed to be said or done. Free speech and expression should not be curtailed unless absolutely necessary; this goes for joining the Klan to making porn to having died hair. The limits in place for yelling fire in a theater, making credible threats, and producing real csam are there to prevent immediate harm. And yes, I know there are more and exceptions; I’m generalizing. I’m also aware of the paradox of tollerance.

With AI generated csam, assuming the training model didn’t use real csam to begin with, no person is harmed in its creation. Consumption of it could lead to harm, if it normalizes the behavior, making it seem alright for someone to harm a real child. On the otherhand, maybe having it could help keep someone’s desires under control by giving them an outlet.

Has expert research been done on this? Though it might be hard to research. Given the subject matter, I’d imagine it’d be difficult to find a sample group large enough to test. Maybe based on arrest records. Peer reviewed research would help guide the direction.

If AI generated csam causes people to - who wouldn’t have otherwise - harm children, then it should be added to the list of banned speech. If not, then even though many of us will find it disgusting, it shouldn’t be made illegal. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Again, I’m torn on this one. What thoughts do you folks have?

Edit: missed sentence.