This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?

The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to “imitation” children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won’t try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?

I’ve heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don’t think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.

I’m just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.

  • LouNeko@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Personally, I lean towards the idea that it should be legal since I don’t support the idea that someone “owns” their own image, and that so long as it isn’t being presented as true information, which would be defamation, people are free to make whatever content they like featuring someone’s image, even if the subject doesn’t like it.

    I guess this is where our opinions differ, because I lean towards the contrary.

    If you rephrase:

    The joyrider deprived me of my rightfully owned property for some period of time, and used it against my interests.

    To:

    The deepfaker deprived me of my rightfully owned property for some period of time, and used it against my interests.

    under consideration that I see images as intellectual property, you can see where my approach to this problem came from and why I specifically used joyriding as a fitting example.

      • LouNeko@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        I’ve already had this debate once about similar topic regarding AI. There are certainly very good arguments for both points of view (especial when it comes to music, I’m more on your side). I’m ready to agree to disagree.