Second, the distribution of CSAM was “intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children” because the materials “are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.”

I guess this is why I’ve been apprehensive about the rebranding of “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse materials”, because I just knew it was only a matter of time before someone would successfully argue that AI generated content is legal since it doesn’t involve provable child sexual abuse.

By trying to argue that the term “child pornography” is dangerous for implied consent, we’ve inadvertently created a legally-sanctioned process of developing child pornography that is not dependent on the legal standard for consent at all.

The bar needs to be set lower than that, IMO. Freedom of speech be damned.

As if I needed more reasons to be pissed off