So you were aware of this and didn't do anything about it until now? Why?

saying Indian people can't understand that posting pornography of minors is wrong is racist

1. You know as much as I do that legality =/= morality so don't try to turn this into a cultural chauvinism thing or some shit. Legality wasn't even brought up in the posts. We're talking about right and wrong.
2. A trusted user here has argued that lolicon, while morally wrong to produce, should not be called CSAM because an actual child was not sexually abused and victims orgs have advocated for being specific when we use the term they created (CSAM). They explained it better than me so I wont try to go any further with that. But here's the thing. This situation is not lolicon. A child is being abused because AI is being used to create nude images of an actual physical flesh and blood child. This is not the same as that because a child is in fact being abused even if the abuse isn't physical.
3. Why did he find this distinction worth arguing in the first place???? Why is this a hill to die on?
4. Noones brought it up but how is it "pro-establishment" lmao I just want that bit clarified.

He's saying that a sexual image of a child generated using AI isn't CSAM. Can you not see how that's fucked up, especially since it was used to bully the child?

agrees that these images are not acceptable, but for a slightly different reason (defamation and libel instead of CSAM).

Don't worry guys, it's just defamation, there aren't other issues with posting

sexualised images of a 15 year old child

publicly online. You see, child porn is fine, but making people think a child produced porn? that's bad.

Now does anyone have a Lemmy alternative to RES so I can start tagging these freaks as paedo's.

Him being from India is a non-factor. He has also previously gone on incel misogynistic tirades on both lemmygrad and lemmy.ml. Him downplaying AI CSAM here is just him being the incel that he is. No need to give this a positive spin.

deleted by creator

From what I see, @TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml also agrees that these images are not acceptable, but for a slightly different reason (defamation and libel instead of CSAM). S

This is not an excuse on a moral level. Even on a purely legalistic level (which I do not admit is the same as a moral judgement, which is what this is) both defamation and libel are generally civil causes of action which can result in injunction against the speaker/writer further speaking/writing, and/or the award of damages. Production of CP is a criminal offence in almost all places and one which tends to attract serious jail time. Conflating the two is still a mitigatory defence of the production of CP.

CW: Sexual assault.

It is functionally the same as a man arguing that he should not be charged with rape because his victim was a sex worker and it was therefore a case of theft. It's an absurd and terrible argument and anyone who makes it should be mocked and shunned.

i think you can come up with a better argument than "indians are just like that" tbh

Nutomic, communists are already defamed with the worst libel imaginable. I don't think splitting hairs on something like this publicly, even if you believed it was a worthwhile endeavor for some reason I can't fathom, is a good idea. Hemming and hawwing around topics like CSAM make our SA Survivor and Marginalized Identity comrades extremely uncomfortable, as we know what kind of attitudes and actions it betrays in a person. I think you should reconsider your neutrality in this.

Go fuck yourself you CSAM defending scumbag piece of shit.

The relevant laws in India are these:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176300164/

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2079/1/AA2012-32.pdf

Quoting from the latter's Section 2(1)(da):

“child pornography” means any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a child which include photograph, video, digital or computer generated image indistinguishable from an actual child and image created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict a child;

Now I suppose you could argue that "sexually explicit conduct", or from the former law "sexually esplicit [sic] act or conduct", or "obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner", should not be interpreted as referring to nudity alone. In which case I would like to know what exactly you were doing with Monica Lewinsky between 1995 and 1997, Mr. Clinton. "No sexual relations", huh? Interesting. :^)

This whole series of comments of yours reminds me of this old YouTuber I used to watch called Cosmodore. When it was found that he had groomed a 15-year-old girl, he faked an acknowledgement of his wrongdoing, while at the same time downplaying his actions by pointing to German law, claiming that the age of consent in his country was only 14 years old — hence, "See? See? It's, it's totally legal guise, Germans just have a whole different culture where grooming 15 year olds is perfectly normal and fine, see? Don't judge me by your American standards! Bla-bla-bla-bla!"

Viewers quickly found that his claims about German law were a grave misrepresentation of the law as it actually stood, and in any case his desperation to downplay his actions cast doubt on the sincerity of his own "redemption". And indeed it was soon found that after he was outed as a groomer, he groomed another child.

Cosmodore's case is quite illustrative with regards to arguing from "legality" or from supposed "cultural differences". It's a form of argument which allows for what one might call the rhetorical "horns of the bull formation", to borrow old Shaka's term: "why should we care about legality?" as the one horn, and "is the law what you say it is?" on the other; or "when the culture is regressive, should it not be changed?" as the one horn, and "is the culture what you say it is?" on the other. And indeed, there is no moral, legal, or cultural justification for the person in question's views, nor is there a moral, legal, or cultural justification for your defense of him — the bull has gored you, it gored you when others simply read this comment and could immediately smell bullshit. By doubling down you are only further inviting people to question your motives and further ruining your own reputation.

There is exactly one word which fits those willing to split hairs on a bald head when it comes to child sexual abuse material, or those willing to go out of their way to defend an incel libertarian at the cost of their own dignity and the dignity of those around them, indeed the dignity of an entire country. And that word — a very good Russian word — is позорshame.

log off and never log in again