Szdfan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:21 am
Child pornography is illegal because it involves the direct exploitation and abuse of a minor — a person who cannot legally consent. That’s not about moral discomfort. It’s about violated rights and bodily autonomy.
You can believe that pornography is morally wrong and still understand that, legally, adults are allowed to consent to things you may find immoral. That’s the difference between a moral framework and a legal system based on individual rights.
Children don’t have the freedom of speech?
Child pornography isn’t illegal because of speech. It’s illegal because it involves the sexual exploitation of a minor who cannot legally consent. That’s a violation of bodily autonomy and a direct harm.
That’s categorically different from adults choosing to participate in or consume legal pornography. One involves exploitation without capacity for consent -- the other involves consensual behavior among adults, even if it is immoral.
Actually, that’s not correct. Child pornography laws (in most states) include AI or computer generated depictions, or using filmmaking techniques to make it look like a child - even if no actual minors are involved.
In other words, there isn’t actually unlimited freedom of speech for adults to do whatever they want with pornography.
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 1:22 pm
As for your question about 17 and 18 year old free speech rights. The 18 year old can buy, sell, and create porn. The 17 year old cannot.
That's begging the question. Can you point to anything ELSE?
And no, I don't think your school would allow 18 year olds to buy, sell, and produce pornography at school, and I bet they don't allow 17 year olds to either. I am asking for an explicit example of a freedom of speech that 17 year olds don't have that 18 year olds do, and that is not related to pornography.
In reality, public schools apply the same rules to 18 year old seniors as they do to 17 year old juniors. All on the principal of "in loco parentis".
Has this ever actually been litigated directly? Not to my knowledge. Maybe some day some 18 year old will sue because the school asked him to take off his Budweiser baseball cap and that violates his free speech rights. And maybe it will go all the way up to the Supreme Court. But I doubt it. Although stranger things have happened. This Supreme Court case actually happened when we were living in Juneau Alaska and right outside my office window in the Juneau Federal Building: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
R7ehr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:48 am
Children don’t have the freedom of speech?
Child pornography isn’t illegal because of speech. It’s illegal because it involves the sexual exploitation of a minor who cannot legally consent. That’s a violation of bodily autonomy and a direct harm.
That’s categorically different from adults choosing to participate in or consume legal pornography. One involves exploitation without capacity for consent -- the other involves consensual behavior among adults, even if it is immoral.
Actually, that’s not correct. Child pornography laws (in most states) include AI or computer generated depictions, or using filmmaking techniques to make it look like a child - even if no actual minors are involved.
In other words, there isn’t actually unlimited freedom of speech for adults to do whatever they want with pornography.
It is still the same justification though. Even AI child porn is banned because even if the image isn't of a real person, even AI child porn still fosters the exploitation of children. The images themselves are banned irrespective of how they were created. The subject is too new to have been litigated in front of the Supreme Court though. Maybe some day it will be.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 1:22 pm
As for your question about 17 and 18 year old free speech rights. The 18 year old can buy, sell, and create porn. The 17 year old cannot.
That's begging the question. Can you point to anything ELSE?
And no, I don't think your school would allow 18 year olds to buy, sell, and produce pornography at school, and I bet they don't allow 17 year olds to either. I am asking for an explicit example of a freedom of speech that 17 year olds don't have that 18 year olds do, and that is not related to pornography.
In reality, public schools apply the same rules to 18 year old seniors as they do to 17 year old juniors. All on the principal of "in loco parentis".
Has this ever actually been litigated directly? Not to my knowledge. Maybe some day some 18 year old will sue because the school asked him to take off his Budweiser baseball cap and that violates his free speech rights. And maybe it will go all the way up to the Supreme Court. But I doubt it. Although stranger things have happened. This Supreme Court case actually happened when we were living in Juneau Alaska and right outside my office window in the Juneau Federal Building: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
I’m asking for any examples, whether in school or not.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 3:15 pm
Child pornography isn’t illegal because of speech. It’s illegal because it involves the sexual exploitation of a minor who cannot legally consent. That’s a violation of bodily autonomy and a direct harm.
That’s categorically different from adults choosing to participate in or consume legal pornography. One involves exploitation without capacity for consent -- the other involves consensual behavior among adults, even if it is immoral.
Actually, that’s not correct. Child pornography laws (in most states) include AI or computer generated depictions, or using filmmaking techniques to make it look like a child - even if no actual minors are involved.
In other words, there isn’t actually unlimited freedom of speech for adults to do whatever they want with pornography.
It is still the same justification though. Even AI child porn is banned because even if the image isn't of a real person, even AI child porn still fosters the exploitation of children. The images themselves are banned irrespective of how they were created. The subject is too new to have been litigated in front of the Supreme Court though. Maybe some day it will be.
Yet it shows pornography isn’t actually a guaranteed freedom of speech, because it isn’t speech.
And it has nothing to do with minors. No minors are involved.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 3:15 pm
Child pornography isn’t illegal because of speech. It’s illegal because it involves the sexual exploitation of a minor who cannot legally consent. That’s a violation of bodily autonomy and a direct harm.
That’s categorically different from adults choosing to participate in or consume legal pornography. One involves exploitation without capacity for consent -- the other involves consensual behavior among adults, even if it is immoral.
Actually, that’s not correct. Child pornography laws (in most states) include AI or computer generated depictions, or using filmmaking techniques to make it look like a child - even if no actual minors are involved.
In other words, there isn’t actually unlimited freedom of speech for adults to do whatever they want with pornography.
It is still the same justification though. Even AI child porn is banned because even if the image isn't of a real person, even AI child porn still fosters the exploitation of children. The images themselves are banned irrespective of how they were created. The subject is too new to have been litigated in front of the Supreme Court though. Maybe some day it will be.
Assuming this is the case, why wouldn't adult porn (especially AI generated) be banned under the theory that it fosters the exploitation of vulnerable adults?
Actually, that’s not correct. Child pornography laws (in most states) include AI or computer generated depictions, or using filmmaking techniques to make it look like a child - even if no actual minors are involved.
In other words, there isn’t actually unlimited freedom of speech for adults to do whatever they want with pornography.
It is still the same justification though. Even AI child porn is banned because even if the image isn't of a real person, even AI child porn still fosters the exploitation of children. The images themselves are banned irrespective of how they were created. The subject is too new to have been litigated in front of the Supreme Court though. Maybe some day it will be.
Assuming this is the case, why wouldn't adult porn (especially AI generated) be banned under the theory that it fosters the exploitation of vulnerable adults?
Because in this society we have chosen to protect children sexually, but not adults.
You can have an affair with an adult over the age of 18 and it is perfectly legal.
Try that with a 13 year old and watch how fast the law will come down on your head like a ton of bricks.
Last edited by Ken on Fri Apr 25, 2025 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 5:18 pm
Because in this society we have chosen to protect children but not adults.
You can have an affair with an adult over the age of 18 and it is perfectly legal.
Try that with a 13 year old and watch how fast the law will come down on your head like a ton of bricks.
... none of which has to do with computers generating images, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of speech.
Yes it does.
Child porn is prohibited because it involves the sexual exploitation of minors for the same exact reason that statutory rape is banned.
The FBI and other law enforcement agencies says the law extends to AI imagery of child porn (or child porn using actors over 18 who look like children) because even if no minors were involved in the production, the distribution of such porn still fosters an environment in which the sexual exploitation of children is normalized.
Has the Supreme Court actually weighed in on the question of AI generated child porn? No. But that case could well be coming at some point. And I would expect the court to uphold the FBI's interpretation of the law. Don't you?
Free speech is not a universal and unlimited right. You do not have the right to use speech to threaten others. You do not have the right to use speech to violate the privacy of others. You do not have the right to use speech to disclose classified information. The courts and the law is continually drawing lines and balancing free speech against other objectives. In this case they have drawn the line at child porn. And for allowing adults to buy porn but not minors. And that is actually where most Americans would draw it as well. This is where public opinion has been on the topic over the past 50 years. At present, only 28% agree with you that all porn should be banned for everyone. Only 4% think it should be legal for everyone including minors. And 68% agree with the Supreme Court that it should be legal for adults but banned for minors which is the current law.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 5:33 pmThe FBI and other law enforcement agencies says the law extends to AI imagery of child porn (or child porn using actors over 18 who look like children) because even if no minors were involved in the production, the distribution of such porn still fosters an environment in which the sexual exploitation of children is normalized.
... which is entirely a matter of freedom of speech for adults (assuming they're the ones running the AI software), and has nothing to do with children doing or not doing anything.
Free speech is not a universal and unlimited right.
Ah, interesting. So it WOULD be possible to outlaw pornography, then?
