It is unknown if these images hurt real children or lower the rate of sexual abuse of real children.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in-novel-case-us-charges-man-with-making-child-sex-abuse-images-with-ai/ar-BB1mO208
This is the 2003 law. It exempts depictions with "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". I guess the definition of these terms is up to the feelings and moods of a jury. They are not defined in the law. If a defendant claims a fascination with the beauty of children, is that literary value? One wonders if depictions of nude children playing in a tub or by a pool are unlawful.
This is another example of the law in failure. They failed to research the effects of a law. They failed to define essential terms in the law. They failed to consider the protection of real children from sexual abuse.
The US is one of the worst places for child sexual trafficking thanks to the failed lawyer profession.
https://www.savethechildren.org/us/charity-stories/child-trafficking-myths-vs-facts
No comments:
Post a Comment