Perhaps sometimes it's best for judges to ignore technical loopholes and rigid legal precedent for the sake of doing the right thing? Maybe, in extreme cases where absolute evil is involved, our system could dismiss the "rights of artists" and enforce restrictions based on the potential long term damage to society as a whole?
Yes, the constitutional conundrums are plenty, but can't we also simply use common sense? Because if we can't, these kinds of artistic "expressions" are going to inspire independent vigilantism and it will be the fault of the courts when this inevitably happens.
A federal appeals court says a Supreme Court precedent set in 2002 forces it to protect the in-home possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material. The court warned that rapidly advancing technology has complicated legal lines drawn nearly 25 years ago.
The Seventh Circuit said it was bound by the Supreme Court decision that rejected restrictions on sexually explicit depictions of fictional children when no actual child was involved in their creation. But two judges warned that modern AI can now generate images virtually indistinguishable from material depicting the abuse of real children.
In other words, artistic depictions of child abuse are legal to possess in private because no real children were harmed in their creation. The use of AI exploits this loophole for the creation of hyper-realistic images very similar to real pornographic content.
"Indeed, in Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court addressed the sco
