A Florida man is facing 20 counts of obscenity for allegedly creating and distributing AI-generated child pornography, highlighting the danger and ubiquity of generative AI being used for nefarious reasons.

Phillip Michael McCorkle was arrested last week while he was working at a movie theater in Vero Beach, Florida, according to TV station CBS 12 News. A crew from the TV station captured the arrest, which made for dramatic video footage due to law enforcement leading away the uniform-wearing McCorkle from the theater in handcuffs.

  • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    48
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s just AI imagery.

    Fantasising about sexual contact with children indicates that this person might groom children for real, because they have a sexual interest in doing so. As someone who was sexually assaulted as a child, it’s really not something that needs to happen.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      indicates that this person might groom children for real

      But unless they have already done it, that’s not a crime. People are prosecuted for actions they commit, not their thoughts.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        64
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I agree, this line of thinking quickly spirals into Minority Report territory.

        • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          It will always be a gray area, and should be, but there are practical and pragmatic reasons to ban this imagery no matter its source.

    • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Seems like then fantasizing about shooting people or carjacking or such indcates that person might do that activity for real to. There are a lot of car jackings nowadays and you know gta is real popular. mmmm. /s but seriously im not sure your first statement has merit. Especially when you look at where to draw the line. anime. manga. oil paintings. books. thoughts in ones head.

      • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you’re asking whether anime, manga, oil paintings, and books glorifying the sexualization of children should also be banned, well, yes.

        This is not comparable to glorifying violence, because real children are victimized in order to create some of these images, and the fact that it’s impossible to tell makes it even more imperative that all such imagery is banned, because the existence of fakes makes it even harder to identify real victims.

        It’s like you know there’s an armed bomb on a street, but somebody else filled the street with fake bombs, because they get off on it or whatever. Maybe you’d say making fake bombs shouldn’t be illegal because they can’t harm anyone. But now suddenly they have made the job of law enforcement exponentially more difficult.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sucks to be law enforcement then. I’m not giving up my rights to make their jobs easier. I hate hate HATE the trend towards loss of privacy and the “if you didn’t do anything wrong then you have nothing to hide” mindset. Fuck that.

      • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you want to keep people who fantasise about sexually exploiting children around your family, be my guest. My family tried that, and I was raped. I didn’t like that, and I have drawn my own conclusions.

        • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          yeah and if you want to keep people who fantasize about murdering folk. you can’t say one thing is a thing without saying the other is. Im sorry you were raped but I doubt it would be stopped by banning lolita.

          • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I don’t recall Nabokov’s novel Lolita saying that sexualising minors was an acceptable act.

            Thanks for the strawman, though, I’ll save it to burn in the colder months.

            • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              2 months ago

              You can call it a strawman but doing something evil if its killing folks or raping folks the effect should be the same when discussing non actual and actual. You can say this thing is a special case but when it comes to freedom of speech, which is anything that is not based in actual events. writing, speaking, thinking, art. Special circumstances becomes a real slippery slope (which can also be brought up as a fallacy which like all “fallacies” depend a lot on what else backs them up on how they are being presented)