• Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Okay, dickhead. Do you treat everyone who talks about child abuse laws as a predator?

      Let me tell you EXACTLY what will happen if the federal government treats cartoon pornofraphy the same as real CSAM: the amount of CSAM being viewed goes up. Way up.

      The reason why real child sexual abuse is heavily penalized and cartoon stuff isn’t is because real child sexual abuse is worse. Would you rather have people looking at cartoons or real children?

      On top of that, shows like Euphoria,/and others would become just as illegal as real child pornography. After all, the characters depicted are minors, but the actors are adults. Would you be okay with someone watching Euphoria being punished the same as somene looking at real child sexual abuse?

      “Oh but I would rather people not veiw anything of sexualized children, real or not-” well I hate to break it to you: its going to happen anyway. The point of criminal punishment is harm reduction. And punishing looking at a cartoon and child pornography the same is only going to increase viewership of real child pornography.

      And I’m not even defending it [cartoons] but I definitely would like for real child sexual abuse to decrease, so I’m okay with (edit: CARTOONS) existing. YOU are reading into my comment.

      • YabosMcGee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Kairos

        Holy shit. Before you “ackchually” maybe you should look up this shit? Images or video of a minor that depict an act of sex abuse against an identifiable minor CAN include drawings. There have been some cases where people have been convicted of only that (in other cases the person usually had “real” CSAM so it’s hard to determine what the outcome would have been). Here’s a highlighted excerpt from a case in the 5th circuit from a great thread literally about this:

        https://bsky.app/profile/jackscellphone.bsky.social/post/3ksissuq2ft2w

        And, yes, before you push your glasses up your nose and “buh buh buh”, it does say the charge is obscenity. But, again, I encourage you to read the full thread linked below to understand why that doesn’t fucking matter at all.

        The thread this is by someone that has extensive experience in trust and safety in social media. This very long thread has a lot of information you should read before you “okay, dickhead” and then slippery slope something that already happened:

        https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3kuuk2nlkrk2a