Freedom of expression and child porn

[Rysto]

@JRDelirious

Regarding legality of “virtual” CP, the status right now in the US is that yes, the SCotUS struck down in 2002 the parts of laws defining that it was just as much CP as “live action”; BUT they did leave it open to “try and get it right next time”, which led to the PROTECT Act of 2003. See this post in an earlier thread for a summary of PROTECT as best I’ve understood it (and a link to the law). (Another ruling came down since, but it was on the still-standing parts of the EARLIER law, not on the new one)

And yes, it was “sold” with dire warnings that soon CGI will be so good as to be undistinguishable form real. As late as last year I was :dubious: about whether the average loser creating CP in his garage would have that kind of grafix firepower, but I must admit, it could happen eventually. Yet **even so ** I still think that if there’s no actual child, there should be no crime; it should just mean that the police/Feds have to hire some CG geeks with mad skillz for the CSI lab, to tell one from the other. (Would it be feasible to design 3D rendering software with a feature accessible only through a “backdoor”, that registers if the image was 100% rendered in the grafix engine or if it was imported from a sampled photograph, and embeds that info in the finished image? Have “legit” sim programs embed a secure “stamp of approval”? I really don’t know)

My solution would to put the burden on the defense to prove that the imagery is faked. It’s the only way I can think of to not leave a hole in the law large enough to drive a truck through. If that also stamps out the production of I Can’t Believe It’s Not Child-Porn, so be it.

[KJ]

How could simulated underage porn possibly be illegal? If an image doesn’t represent a specific person, all you would have to do is write “This person is actually 18” (or for that matter, 300 years old) on the image, and it would be impossible to disprove.

[Mister_Rik]

To answer the OP, I once heard it put this way (paraphrasing): “It’s only a God-given right if it does not infringe on somebody else’s God-given right.”

So a person has the right or freedom to “express” whatever the damn well please, as long as that “expression” doesn’t infringe on somebody else’s rights or freedoms. CP fails that test, as it infringes on at least two of the victim’s rights: privacy & safety.