Comment on "Censorship" ☠️
Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 2 weeks agoI like the meta layer of it. For the girl in the show they’re identical concepts because she IS a drawn child.
Otherwise all your points are valid though they leave a bad taste in my mouth. In Canada drawn CP is basically treated the same as actual CP by the courts which feels a bit extreme.
For the purposes of child pornography laws, a “person” includes both actual and imaginary human beings including drawings from the imagination, cartoons, or computer-generated composites
The definition of child pornography includes any person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years.
It also has minimum sentences of 1 year for a “felony count” and 6 months otherwise
(4) Every person who possesses any child sexual abuse and exploitation material is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
I’ve never really considered how arbitrary this law feels until you put together that message. Record live actual CSAM is the same as downloading a sketchy anime apparently.
Bluewing@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yeah, I find I have some confusion about drawn pictures and even photographs of naked children from back in the day.
Is that 300 year old painting of naked cherubs CP? We don’t know if the painter was a pedo or not. Or is that “cute” photo of me that my Grandmother took of me running bare-assed naked away from my Mother through the house as a toddler because I didn’t want to have a bath CP? Or maybe it’s not because the photo is now 60+ years old and that was a different time? What would the same photo taken by Grandma today be considered?
What makes the difference? And when do we apply that difference to make the determination?
wetsoggybread@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This is argued about all the time and the general consensus revolves around a singular question. Is it sexually explicit, does it show lascivious nudity of the genitals in a sexual manner. This is why if you’re at a nudist beach taking pictures of your wife and a naked kid is in the background playing in the sand or something that kids do its not csam. It falls down to, would a normal person think this nudity is excessive or sexual
EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
That makes sense for a human reviewer of a photo or drawing, but when say Google or Meta have AI review photos or drawings, they caste a wider net. So all the examples above and what you gave would fall under the CSAM definition by their AI. Even that photo of the girl running from the Vietnam War was considered CSAM by Meta. Same has happened for family photos over the years as well as cartoons. In my opinion, it sounds good to do that on paper, but the reality is that calling everything like that as abusive makes it harder to find real victims and bad actors. The NCMEC is the clearing house for that, but they have been failing their objectives for years. Just my two cents.