A 13-year-old girl at a Louisiana middle school got into a fight with classmates who were sharing AI-generated nude images of her
The girls begged for help, first from a school guidance counselor and then from a sheriff’s deputy assigned to their school. But the images were shared on Snapchat, an app that deletes messages seconds after they’re viewed, and the adults couldn’t find them. The principal had doubts they even existed.
Among the kids, the pictures were still spreading. When the 13-year-old girl stepped onto the Lafourche Parish school bus at the end of the day, a classmate was showing one of them to a friend.
“That’s when I got angry,” the eighth grader recalled at her discipline hearing.
Fed up, she attacked a boy on the bus, inviting others to join her. She was kicked out of Sixth Ward Middle School for more than 10 weeks and sent to an alternative school. She said the boy whom she and her friends suspected of creating the images wasn’t sent to that alternative school with her. The 13-year-old girl’s attorneys allege he avoided school discipline altogether.
Seems like vacuous bullshit. At least there, a fraud is technically committed.
A real face is there in someone’s imagination. And it’s distributed to you. Are you going to excuse lesser skill?
So, again, what’s the penalty?
The stand against sensational irrationality is always a good cause.
How so? Is there not fraud committed in this case as well?
We’re not talking about someone’s imagination or stick figures, but an actual digital image depicting a nude human body with the faces of real children. What skill are you referring to and how is this “skill level” relevant to the argument?
Is that what you’re doing? Your comments are devoid of reasoning, logic, or nuance and just relies on a cartoon picture to do all the talking all while you claim everyone who disagrees with you is “showing a lack of thought or intelligence” and being irrational. You’ve done the equivalent of walking into a crowded room, farting, and walking away thinking “heh, heh, I showed those morons.”
Was there a transaction?
That is “an actual digital image depicting a nude human body with the faces of real children”. Both digital images, both depictions of nude human bodies with faces, both faces of real children as far as some viewer is concerned. Where’s your objective legal standard?
You’re just going to let people commit purported crimes with impunity due to weaker skill in synthesizing the images they’re sharing? Seems unjust.
That’s you. You lack an argument to draw a valid legal distinction & are just riding sensationalism. You were given a counterexample & have yet to adequately address it. It’s bankrupt.
Its literally none of those things apart from being digital. The fact that you have to dance around including the word “imagination” for your scenario to be even remotely equivalent gives away how weak your argument is.
Good one
Oh, so now it’s about legality and not “vacuous bullshit” or making a “stand against vapid irrationality?” The law isn’t rigid and immutable. It changes all the time. There weren’t any laws about drunk driving in 1810 either, so having those today must be irrational and lacking intelligence, right? Do you think any of those girls think this is sensationalism? Do you think this is isolated to this one group of kids in this one school?
I’ve addressed your counterexample (BTW thanks for the wiki link. You must not be aware that this term is common knowledge) in literally every single comment, but perhaps your reading comprehension skills are a bit vacuous.
How do you know & by what objective legal standard would you prove it? What’s your objective standard for literal?
The images you argue about are literally fake! If you’re going to say a real face is in a work we know is fake & claim that exercise of imagination as legally relevant fact, then everyone else should get to do the same.
Because I’m honestly acknowledging the imagination you’re not.
You claim a “real” face that objectively isn’t: it’s a fictitious illustration of a face. This requires imagination/suspension of disbelief.
It’s all of them.
Your claim of child sexual abuse material would at the very least involve an actual sexual abuse in its production: that’s the essential element of the crime. It doesn’t apply here. Doctored photos have existed long before. So have skillful compositions that don’t qualify as violations.
You’re going beyond the actual charges mentioned in the story of violating a law specifically created for this situation by departing into unrelated claims of child sexual abuse material. You’re making the incredible claims here lacking justification.
Nice appeal to pity fallacy. It’s irrelevant: they’re not legal scholars. Our laws at the very least have some rational standards not to abandon substantive facts.
not conclusively
Just wanted to butt in and say that you definitely need your hard drives checked. Strange hills and what not.
Well there’s the glaringly obvious fact that police recovered seven additional images and were able to associate them to girls or women from the school. How is that possible if this is all an exercise of “imagination?” These people aren’t imagined they’re real. These images aren’t imagined they’re real. Imagination doesn’t come into play at all here. By your standard, any picture whether taken with a camera or generated with AI is fake too. A picture of you couldn’t be real because you’re standing right there not trapped inside of this computer! It’s pure nonsense.
You didn’t “honestly acknowledge” this until being called out for dancing around it in a weak attempt at bolstering your argument.
Once again, any picture whether captured with a camera or generated with AI is a “fictitious illustration” by your ridiculous standards.
Oh really? So you think anyone can take nude photos of children and it doesn’t count as CSAM just so long as they don’t touch them? Someone could take photos through a kid’s bedroom window and it’s all good because they’re not being touched and may not even know about the photo? Alternatively, someone could take photos of a child and then make their hair purple in Photoshop and suddenly its no longer CSAM because the photos have been “doctored” and are now “fake” right? Thats not how any of this works.
Wow, so now not only do you think all CSAM should be legal because all images are fake, but also because the victims arent legal scholars? Now you’re effectively arguing that no victim of any crime should be considered a victim unless they’ve attended law school first.
Tell me, are you a legal scholar? If not, why the double standard between you and these adolescent victims? You say they need to be legal scholars in order for their opinions to matter while not holding yourself to the same standard.
They do, and here you are trying to argue the complete opposite with arguments such as “someone could imagine this black circle as a child’s face therefore CSAM isn’t real.”
You’re disgusting and a perverted moron and I’m done with you.
Your statement relies on the idea that the image is not the person. While that’s true, the image depicts the person. If I made a painting of child porn, it is still child porn, even though it has no literal duplication of the original image and relies on my imagination to come to fruition. Moreover, when I see a painting of a person, I can recognize them from it, and most people who can associate it with the person depicted and don’t think to themselves, “Oh, that’s an image that looks a lot like them, but am I sure it’s an image of them?” Either way, these images are defamation of the people depicted, which is still illegal. Also, they are still depictions of child porn, which are illegal in many jurisdictions, even if they don’t depict actual people, regardless of the hoops you want to jump through. Your quaint little image has an interesting point where it might make you a holder of child porn if you believe it’s child porn, but not me who just sees stick figures, but I don’t know if intent is relevant for child porn.