Tessera
Folgen

Petzoqui 🔞

@mudragon.bsky.social

Pronounced "Pet-zoe-kee" 21, 18+ only. Mechanical Engineering major. Dominant, Several Thousand Hours on Steam Surprisingly decent chef. ACAB Cry about it. Pfp by @exererrar.bsky.social Banner by @zawn.bsky.social I dabble in RP, very selective and lit.

676 Posts535 Follower2211 Folgt
Sapling 🌱@sacredsapling.bsky.social · yesterday

Woke up to this news and I’m beyond disgusted. It’s a US *constitutional right* now to create and own ‘CSAM,’ as long as it was made with AI?? AI gen images are built from real images, of real children. This directly re-exploits every single CSAM survivor. (More in 🧵) #abolition #trafficking

A federal judge has ruled that the First Amendment protects an individual's right to privately possess child sexual abuse content created using Al if it does not depict a real person and remains in the home. On Tuesday, Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District ruled that the First Amendment protects an individual's right to privately possess images or videos of child sexual abuse created using artificial intelligence if the material does not depict a real person and remains in the home. In his ruling, Judge Lee urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue of virtual abuse material of children in the age of Al, suggesting that technological advances complicate existing legal precedent. The case Lee ruled on came about in 2024 when the Department of Justice brought charges against Steven Anderegg, alleging that he used Al to create thousands of explicit images of children. He was accused of breaking federal obscenity laws by producing, distributing and possessing obscene visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Anderegg sought to have the possession and production charges dismissed under the First Amendment. Last year, a judge in the Western District of Wisconsin agreed to dismiss the possession charge, prompting the federal prosecutors to appeal. Lee, in his ruling upholding the lower court's decision, cited the precedent set by Supreme Court rulings from 1969 and 2002. One held that individuals have a right to possess obscenity in the privacy of their home. The other found that "virtual" child sexual abuse material, not depicting a real person is not child pornography.