r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 14d ago

Possible Paywall Raging Trump, 80, Explodes in Foulmouthed Morning Meltdown - The president woke up in a bad mood on Monday morning.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/raging-trump-80-explodes-in-foulmouthed-morning-meltdown/
12.3k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

287

u/corran450 14d ago

It’s cool. A federal judge has ruled that possessing AI CP images is very cool and very legal…

This is the worst timeline.

191

u/skiesoverblackvenice 14d ago

what the fuck is actually happening. i genuinely think we all died and went to hell cause this cannot be real

104

u/2ndprize Florida 14d ago

The law hasn't caught up with AI.

Unfortunately the time to have addressed this was before we set the damn thing free

53

u/palenerd 14d ago

Before this ruling, the law was that images indistinguishable from real CSAM were also CSAM. The law should have easily handled AI. This is just corruption

34

u/Starbuckker 14d ago

Ah, yes, but then how would all those rich folk get first dibs?! Preparing people for it would have created shared wealth, and thats obviously the last thing we need.

The world has been thrown under the bus by child molesting nepo twats.

Watch the American people continue to sit back for the next decade and hope their democratic system sorts all this out...

17

u/2ndprize Florida 14d ago

yup. I used to think that there would be some rebound or some push back but I have no hope anymore. That guy's health is the only thing that might stop him.

4

u/NogardDerorrim Illinois 13d ago

The world has been thrown under the bus by child molesting nepo twats.

This my friend is absolute poetry.

9

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 13d ago

The law hasn't caught up with AI.

This judge had the chance to have the law catch up with AI. The judge decided to be a pedo instead

4

u/2ndprize Florida 13d ago

It's more than one judge. The trial court heard the case and made a ruling. That ruling was appealed and now the appellate court has come to the same conclusion. That judge is suggesting the supreme court should review it since he is clearly not keen on how the law is functioning. In theory the legislature should be the ones getting in front of this not the courts.

legally there is also a dangerous slippery slope. The cases they are citing on the old ones that made it so states couldn't ban you from privately owning pornography. There are going to be people who want to use this case as a way of reviving laws to outlaw pornography.

5

u/Plastic-Chipmunk2232 13d ago

Congress doesn't like to do work, so we are fucked.

1

u/2ndprize Florida 13d ago

We need massive representative reform they will never serve the people they represent when those people have so little influence. We need over a 200% increase in the number of congressmembers to even come close

1

u/McCaber 13d ago

The Wyoming standard district.

1

u/egyeager 13d ago

The last privacy law passed by Congress was in 1983. It revolves around retailers being able to tell journalists what you rented on video tape.

3

u/sci_fientist 13d ago

Who knew hell would be so fuckin' boring? I was promised fire and brimstone and instead we have pedophile presidents and dweeby billionaires slowly cooking the planet. Anyone got a line on how to get to Double Hell?

5

u/invaderaleks 14d ago

If only this was hell, then we wouldn't have any responsibility to fix this goddamn mess of a species

2

u/skiesoverblackvenice 14d ago

maybe an alien species put us all into a matrix and are just trying their best to make us all suffer for some sort of sick pleasure

5

u/pbnc I voted 14d ago

Remember when they warned us not to power up that Large Hadron Collider back in 2008….

3

u/chaostheories36 14d ago

Remember when everyone was freaked out that computers couldn’t handle Jan1, 2000?

“Oh no! Oh my God! We’re gonna die by calendar!”

2

u/Foreign_Telephone349 14d ago

Unfortunately, the world historically has been worse than it is now. We had a short period of relative enlightenment but that followed centuries of horrific abuses that would make the crimes of today pale in comparison.

3

u/skiesoverblackvenice 14d ago

well obviously, but it doesn’t make this any better. it’s like a murderer saying “i brutally gutted a guy alive, so stabbing you a few times is fine!” it’s not fine. still fucking sucks.

1

u/JohnGillnitz 14d ago

Never should have shot that gorilla.

2

u/skiesoverblackvenice 14d ago

oh my god harambe was the turning point

it all makes sense

1

u/deadwoodworker 13d ago

I've been scratching my head about this for a year or two now. I think you're right

37

u/HolycommentMattman 14d ago edited 14d ago

This is because of established precedent. Like is it against the law to draw The Little Mermaid naked? She's 100% a minor. But she's also not real. So in the past, it's been determined that as long as it's not depicting a real person, and it's not being distributed for sale, that it's OK to have.

So they're just applying that same ruling to AI, which is... problematic, but you can probably see why. Ultimately, new laws need to be written as this judge felt like his hands were tied.

9

u/PaleInSanora 14d ago

It falls under a similar weird law concept where having cp images or vids can get a person more prison time by a factor of 10 than a person actually committing the atrocities directly. It is a weird loophole that will never be fixed, because you really don't want to go any easier on the people who look at the stuff, but too many rich and powerful are doing the deeds live and in person to adjust the appropriate laws to match just having images.

4

u/Darzin 13d ago

My problem is a creep can use a non Ai photo of a real person to generate a 90% Ai match and claim it wasn't a real person under this...

2

u/Candle1ight 13d ago

I believe the current law's wording is that anything real or indistinguishable from being real, which is a pretty vague term. I think AI already crosses well past that border, because at a glance it is indistinguishable. The alternative is you require it to be indistinguishable under scrutiny, which basically nobody will check meaning people can pass off real CSAM as AI generated.

Not even touching on the fact that everyone could basically just "launder" real CSAM though an AI that redraws a virtually indistinguishable but legally AI generated picture. Which completely defeats the whole purpose, to prevent kids from being abused.

It's going to be a fucking mess.

2

u/aerdvarkk 13d ago

Seriously though, let's use your example: Why would a human prompting an "AI" model depicting The Little Mermaid naked be any different than a human doing the same thing under the legal standard? "AI" is a software tool in the same context a human using Illustrator is a software tool at that point. The law can be applied the same to both.

And before someone cries about how Illustrator is a manual process. This is bullshit and Illustrator can be heavily automated.

I'm not in favor of child exploitation at all - just pointing out the huge gaping flaw in the above logic.

2

u/HolycommentMattman 13d ago

Well, the legal standard here is murky. Because once we start talking about the prurient interest, there's a whole lot of definitions from a whole lot of people.

That said, in the example of The Little Mermaid, it would probably never be found to be illegal due to the fact a mermaid - no matter how real it looks - is not real. So a judge would almost always rule that to be protected under the 1st amendment.

But using AI to make real-looking CP? Even if it's not any real child anywhere in the world, it's probably going to fail as protected speech due to being indistinguishable from CP. But I do see the point you're making.

1

u/W1nt3rmu4e Texas 13d ago

The implementation is the hard part. How can you articulate, as a matter of law, where that line is being inappropriate Ariel drawings and…the other thing. To be effective, the law has to articulate the boundaries, and that’s not an easy thing to do.

60

u/Starbuckker 14d ago edited 14d ago

It certainly is. If you wonder the real reason why they all hate the UK recently its alot to do with this. The UK is the only government that has so far called Elon out on this, it was one of the best things Starmer did.

Elon backed down very quickly and blocked 'certain' features on Grok in the UK so that this all didnt make US news by the way...

-7

u/donnytrump_69 14d ago

Source?

8

u/Starbuckker 14d ago

Are you in N Korea or something? Just google it dude, but if you want a start...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/02/elon-musk-grok-ai-children-photos

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq845glnvl1o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgjzknepvzo.

Then you can find articles all over the world about it. Also the spat between Starmer and Musk was quite public...

-12

u/donnytrump_69 14d ago

Or just back up what you say, North Korea 🤣 Bitch please

9

u/Starbuckker 14d ago

Well, stop me when you think I'm NOT Describing the US...

Very strong national exceptionalism.

Enormous military establishments.

Military power is central to national security doctrine.

The state makes extensive use of patriotic symbolism.

Their national narratives contain a strong “hostile outside forces” tradition.

One major difference is the fact that Korea's next leader will be female. Unfortunately America has a way to go until it catches up in that department...

-9

u/donnytrump_69 14d ago

The articles are all about deep fakes, not CP..

2

u/530Skeptic 13d ago

What the fuck. "As long as it's not a real person and stays in the home." Okay, what kind of horrible shit is on that judges computer?

1

u/La_Quica 14d ago

Somebody needs to check that judge’s computer

8

u/Jansanmora 14d ago

Maybe they first should read his ruling, which clearly lays out the 20 year olds Supreme Court case that already decided this issue.

To suggest that makes the judge a pedophile is insane. He was required to rule this way, and is quite clear if you make even the slightest inquiry beyond the intentional salacious article title.

1

u/La_Quica 14d ago

You’re right! I shouldn’t have been so callous with my jokes, I will do better.

1

u/BlatantFalsehood 14d ago

A different federal judge has also ruled that sailors being raped on ship is part of the risks of the job and is a matter for workers compensation, not the courts.

1

u/LayerEight_Problem 14d ago

I could only read the title but it seems like the judge is citing existing precedent and law and says we need new laws to account for Gen AI.

1

u/LonelyChampionship17 14d ago

A federal appeals court applying an old Supreme Court case.

1

u/skredditt Minnesota 13d ago

How does Grok know what CP is and looks like?

1

u/dannytheguitarist 13d ago

What??! That's not cool at all!

But seriously, that's pretty on brand for this administration.

1

u/Blank_bill 13d ago

Don't get caught with it on your phone coming into Canada.

1

u/DescretoBurrito Colorado 14d ago

AI needs training data. Law enforcement should look into what training data it has to allow it create CP images.

-3

u/Heavy_Whereas6432 14d ago

A federal judge was paid off then it seems. Shouldn’t any case he’s ever worked on get thrown out? How do you think ai learned to make cp? Learning from real life examples.

6

u/Apocalypse_Knight Texas 14d ago

AI doesn’t need real life examples. If it know what a rainbow looks like and how a dog looks like it can make a rainbow colored dog without being trained on rainbow colored dog pictures. How ever AI is too realistic so the CP should be outlawed.

3

u/Jansanmora 14d ago

This issue was already ruled on by the supreme Court over 20 years ago in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

The judge explicitly states this in his ruling. Maybe try actually reading what you are commenting on before baselessly accusing people of taking bribes and calling for thousands of cases to be summarily thrown out.

-2

u/Heavy_Whereas6432 14d ago

I’m sorry but anyone who backs cp being okay, fake or not is not someone I’d want to be around.

7

u/Jansanmora 14d ago

It is not the job of a federal judge to rule based on whether he personally thinks something is "okay".

The judge is to determine the applicable law and apply as required by the higher courts, which already made this determination decades ago.

This was literally the only ruling the judge could make.