- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 5/22/24 at 4:34 pm to SixthAndBarone
quote:
As much as I think anyone who watches AI kiddie porn should be shot, I don’t understand how art which doesn’t use real humans can be illegal.
It would fall under the same category as if a human drew it, no?
Posted on 5/22/24 at 4:37 pm to SixthAndBarone
quote:
As much as I think anyone who watches AI kiddie porn should be shot, I don’t understand how art which doesn’t use real humans can be illegal.
There is Supreme Court precednet on this from 20+ years ago
quote:
The court ruled the “virtual pornography” law violated free speech rights. The ruling is a blow to the Justice Department, which in March launched “Operation Candyman,” designed to crackdown on Internet-based child pornography.
The 1996 law addressed advanced computer imaging technology enabling the manipulation of non-sexual images of children into images of them engaging in sex acts. Under the law, producing or selling such pornography was punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while possession was punishable by up to five years.
Pornographers and mainstream filmmakers are hailing the ruling as a victory. Critics had said that such a wide ban could make it a crime to depict simulated sex scenes, such as those in the movies “Traffic” and “Lolita.”
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)