Manga though? Straight to jail.
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
174 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
87884 readers
3942 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
What
UK, Australia, and other countries made possession of fictional pornography involving minors illegal. Manga, but more specifically doujins featuring loli characters are affected.
Within the context of this post I'm pointing out how art made by humans is restricted, but if a big company generates the same shit they're protected.
Odd because the U.S. doesn't have this. Idk the original comment implied it did.
In the US it's more of a state-by-state basis. Texas for example has SB20 which, while targeting AI generated child pornography, is worded in a way that would also target a manga hand-drawn in Procreate. Whether or not this was done on purpose is something you can decide for yourself.
The constitution applies in all states. The 14th amendment makes that explicit.
So here’s going to be an unpopular opinion. First let me preface this with I think hurting children is one of the worst things you can do. But is drawing a naked child illegal? Is a video game with a naked child 3d model illegal? Where is the line? Is it weird? Hell fucking yes. Is it wrong? I also believe yes. But it’s not an actual child. The real question should be, how did the AI know how to create those images? Because it was trained on actual child porn. And how this AI was trained should really be the crime. Because it ingested shit-tons of actual CSAM.
AI has not necessary been trained on CSAM. It may be able to generate it because it has both the concept of nakedness and the concept of children. Just like AI can generate flying dogs with wings and everything doesn't mean it's been trained on pictures of flying dogs.
I don't understand this at all. I thought it was illegal to have possession of child pornography. In fact isn't that what CBP, said they were looking for on the guy's phone when they put in the code and it wiped itself? So it's legal to generate it, but not possess it? WTF? Did I hear wrong?
All answered by *drum roll* reading the article.
Read the article? Are you nuts?
Home possession only, ruling doesn't apply to the creation or distribution.
it really feels like evil has just won unchallenged.
If you read the article, this is a very specific legal question. And honestly, it's too gross to contemplate, and having a strong opinion about this on the internet is rightly suspicious.
The good news is the criminal in this case didn't just posess CSAM, and no matter how this shakes out, they going to jail.
Having a firm conviction about realizing fundamental rights & liberties to their logical limits isn't suspicious. Anything less is cowardice. The decision was sound.
load more comments
(12 replies)
Wait. Doesn't the PROTECT Act deal with this?
Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Wouldn't this fall under that? I'm confused.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›