Tw Csem Mention - Tumblr Posts

Antis not knowing how to interpret the law makes me want to pull my hair out. Antis not knowing that different countries, and even US states (while being American) have different laws annoy me so fucking much.

They just want to be right, and if anything remotely sounds like it could prove them right, even when it doesn’t, they’ll take it and run.

No, a pornographic Sonic the hedgehog drawing does not classify as virtual CSEM outright. That is saved for when CSEM is directly traced or referenced to create the art and AI or computer generated images (it even says so in that part of the law they read)

Oh no. People who are healing and coping are happy with the fact that they're healing and coping. What a terrible thing. They must all immediately keel over in shame and die.

(By the way the legal definition of child pornography pertains only to pornography depicting and involving real life children.)

it would be a little easier if the people who were "coping with childhood sexual abuse" by making content that is perfectly described as "child pornography" seemed a little less gleeful about it. But what do I know.

in light of that ask you got, i just wanna say- as a CSEM victim, there is nothing more ridiculously fucking disrespectful than people who call drawings of fictional characters "drawn CP". i hope everyone who does this, and especially people who send you threats over telling them that's wrong, is ashamed of themselves. thanks for doing what you do.

The unfortunate reality is that I can genuinely understand the perspective a lot of antis have. We grow up being told things are irrevocably bad with absolutely no nuance, and it sets us up for failure in circumstances like these unless we choose to do our own research and investigations and are willing to educate ourselves out of the blanket statements and ignorance we were raised in.

Most antis have the perspective that victims who don't decry fiction are simply damaged or changed or converted by their trauma, and thus lose their validity and right to a voice when we contest that actually, what they're doing isn't protecting us. Its harming us. By their opinions and actions we are no longer 'worthy' victims.

It did make me laugh a little that that person outright said with their entire heart that an organisation that's been dealing with actually protecting children and victims for literal decades isn't right or valid for stating that fictional content does not violate any law and is not morally or otherwise classified as CP.

Because. Y'know. Its their job to decide what is and isn't. And to prosecute and protect.

And the thing is... Even if the drawings are being made by a genuine, actual pedophile... I still don't see the issue. They're using art as an outlet and a coping mechanism to avoid harming real people. Are all those antis telling me they'd rather pedophiles harm real children?

Having a proper outlet does not encourage harm. Trying to bottle up your desires with no release does. There's a reason almost every single in-patient treatment facility and prison have art or literature as a therapy program.

If I know it would stop someone harming a real life child, I'd buy them the whole fucking art store.

Also, yeah. Having real life harm equated to fictional characters and art is so blatantly disrespectful its unreal. If you're trying to tell me what I went through is no more suffering than what a piece of paper or digital screen went through, you're telling me I have no more value than something that doesn't even exist.

By the way, no.

Fictional smut, be it literature or art, involving fictional characters who are children, is not child pornography because they are not actual children.

Hope this helps.

Stop watering down child pornography and its genuine horrors by trying to tell victims that made up little beings have the same rights as they do.

When people tell you its dangerous and dehumanizing to equate fictional people to real ones, listen to them.

Sexual rpf of minors is csem in the same manner that drawn nsfw of real minors is csem; The writer is sexually exploiting this minor and their likeness. Regardless of the legality of it (because legality is subjective), it is in fact exploitative and unethical to make nsfw of a real child in any manner. Children are incapable of consenting to having fiction of themselves in sexual situations written, you are only able to do so non-consensually.

"Regardless of the legality of it—"

Nope.

(The same anon from the CSEM thing, sorry)

When you said that even hyper-realistic art of a child could be considered CSEM, even if it was tecnically fake, a question popped out of my mind for some reason:

What if a artist decided to draw a fictional child character in a sexualized manner with a realistic artstyle, will this count as CSEM, even if the child doesn't exist?

(Sorry if I keep doing this type of questions)

As before this does technically hinge on the laws of where the content exists and where the creator who made it resides. The laws regarding visual images are often far more restrictive than those regarding literature.

For example, under the 2009 Coroners and Justice Act (s62-s68) within the United Kingdom it would be illegal if the artwork depicted sexual acts with a child or was explicitly focused on their genitals whether or not the child was real or fictional.

In the United States, the 2003 PROTECT Act defines that hyper-realistic sexual images (drawn, manipulated, ect) can only be prosecuted if they are indistinguishable from an image of a real child or cannot be proven as artificially created.

In Japan, however, pornography of fictional minors, even hyper-realistic, is a lucrative, legal and normalised industry. Its seen in everything from street art to manga.

Okay, fine, AI rape art is fine because it's not real. What about AI CSAM? Is it fine because it's art, or is it bad because real CSAM content is basically guaranteed to have been involved in training the AI? Again, where do you think AI /learns/ to make photorealistic RAPE art? It uses REFERENCES.

I can't believe you're making me somewhat defend AI generation here but off we go I guess.

AI data-mines accessible media and specific locations for media. While AI continuously learns the more you use it, the majority of AI's founding knowledge came pre-launch, as well as with its training. AI is not digging its little fingers around in the dark web.

For example if you wanted to prompt 'child porn' the AI does not immediately start digging around in the dark web for child pornography. It pairs the two keywords 'child' with everything its learned on children and 'porn' with everything its learned on sex and pornography and mashes them together.

So, no. Its not "basically guaranteed" to have used real CSEM. Nice try, though.

Granted there are still AI services which allow you to insert a sample image, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think an inserted reference image paired with specific prompts won't get flagged for review. AI techbros don't want their million dollar investments getting tanked and while they don't care about copyright you can bet they'll care if the FBI start kicking down their doors.

Most AI generators, in their legal statements, will have a section about using unlawful content to reference, train or manipulate their technology.

A lot of AI generation tools also blacklist certain key terms anyway so pornographic or "unsavory" content cannot be created. (Like rape images, murder images, gore images, ect.)

(E.g; if I tried to prompt 'Trump getting murdered' on select AI generation sites it would tell me I cannot use a prompt including 'murdered.')

I will say that there needs to be a better system in place for that. I'm sure a lot of samples of actual illegal activity have made it through the cracks (as it does everywhere), which is part of why I firmly believe AI generation should be shut down until the entire system can be reworked in order to offer better protection to the people who are being used as cashcows. In terms of copyright protection and more effective systems for preventing AI being trained off of certain content.

And because I know you're going to ask; yes. I do believe that if an image was generated sourced from actual CSEM, that the image should be as thoroughly scrubbed as possible. I do not condone CSEM in any form nor for any uses.

Nor do I condone AI generation (as it currently stands.)

Are you done with your little gotcha attempts now, Anon? I'm bored.

That last addition, this is important to note. I've been lurking on Pixiv and JP/KR/CN twitter for a long time, so remember this very well: CP IN JP/KR/CN/etc. FANDOM SHIPPING CONTEXT MEANS "COUPLE", NOT GODDAMN CSEM

Ngl, I know very well what that abbreviation means in JP/KR/CN twitter and Pixiv, but holy shit, it never fails to give me heart attacks knowing that some North American cuntfuck might probably go apeshit and harrass East-Asian artists for using CP (COUPLE) as a term for discussing ships

East Asian fanartists are starting to migrate back to Tumblr because Twitter is insane, toxic, and dying, and what we're NOT going to do is let the fucking exclusionists get them, do you hear me? We are not going to let a bunch of feral idiots try to apply the most myopic version of puritanism to foreign artists we're not we're not we're not. Form an armed brigade if you have to, do you hear me. We're not going to bully the artists who may or may not even speak English because we have our precious standards of moral purity. If we see art that makes us uncomfy we're going to block the artist and tumblr savior their name so we don't have to see them again AND WE'RE GONNA MOVE THE FUCK ON.

i remember seeing a screenshot from twitter of an anti saying its about protecting fictional kids and that they don't care about real ones

well here's an anti telling someone to look at ACTUAL CSEM instead of writing fanfiction