Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiabloD3 | Hacker News Reader

I, too, have an issue with this ruling.

CSAM laws exist to punish abusers, and seek justice for the abused. Not one or the other, but both. The law cannot function without the victims, else you're just attacking people for what amounts to thought crimes.

I find CSAM and pedophiles disgusting, and I imagine 100% of HN users agree with me on this, but this just opens the door for world governments to a) claim LLM output is real and factual (!), but b) minimizes the danger to victims and equates victimhood to being a fictional character.

I'm not Danish and I'm hoping this is just some Dane-specific weird quirk of their law, but from what I can see, this is a politically-biased ruling to "think of the children".

View on HN

Should we allow victims of child pornography to endorse the distribution of images of themselves as a child once they are an adult too since at that point, each additional viewer doesn't generate an additional victim? No, because it encouraged future abuse.

Unfortunately that gets into a weird spot. I, too, believe that it should be disallowed for that reason, but the opposite end of that is prosecuting teenagers for distributing photos of themselves to other teenagers (their same-age peers)... which has unfortunately occurred due to improper application of the law.

The law must recognize the right to self-determinism and bodily autonomy, and you can't inherently be both the victim and the abuser. There is no one size fits all law, and many governments are trying to act like they have one.

> ... but the opposite end of that is prosecuting teenagers for distributing photos of themselves to other teenagers (their same-age peers)... which has unfortunately occurred due to improper application of the law.

Do you have a concrete example of this happening? Every time I have heard of a minor being persecuted for possession or distribution is when one person sent an image of themselves to another person and then that other person further distributed it to other people without their consent, which to be clear is wrong.

That is part of the problem though: in any acceptable interpretation of the law, the one in the photo would be the victim, so how could they be charged with also being the abuser? You can't be your own abuser. I, too, am only aware of cases where this has happened because the receiver then shared it with others; however, the person that received it is also a minor of the same age thus also inappropriate to charge them, but would be the more correct choice.

https://www.aclu.org/news/juvenile-justice/minnesota-prosecu...

This is one such case, but hardly unique.

> however, the person that received it is also a minor of the same age thus also inappropriate to charge them

No not really, sharing sexual images to others that were shared to you directly by a person should be (and in some countries is) a crime. The boy in the linked case should be the one charged with the distribution of child pornography, or something akin to revenge porn since they are both minors.

It is probably very hard to carve out these exceptions for minors sexting, but we already have (in some countries) consent laws that factor in relationships between minors. I don't see why this would be different

It depends on the culture. Many crimes like this are considered adult crimes, and to be charged with them as a minor the prosecution has to go through the process to get them charged as an adult.

Generally the process isn't worth it unless they think they have a near certain chance of winning against the child.

I do agree, however, that in bird culture, sharing nudes that were sent to you is considered a dick move.

What do you mean by "Dutch"? Do you mean "Danish" as in "Denmark"?

I agree because I think it is a slippery slop, is that the same reasoning can soon easily be applied to other more disputable cases.

Look at the recent news that Anthropic will ban users that insult their models. How can it make any logic sense?

But it could easily become "punishable by law" also:

- Abusing (non sexually) a fictitious person that is a LLM.

- Insulting a LLM in a chat box, based on a fact that it speaks and appear to behave like a human. The LLM can pretend and simulate that it is offended if you forget that it is just bytes behind.

And in the end, how to consider the following case:

- You have a government call center for a public service, you are aggressive and insult the agent -> it is potentially a legal crime

- Now the agent of this public service that you are talking to is in fact an AI, clearly stated as so, an you insult it very aggressively. -> No human being is hurt so should it be an legal offense?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com