The New York Times has an article about artificial people. No, not liberals and democrats. There are computer created people. They don’t exist. Apparently there are software vendors that sell computer generated photos. Not only do the people not exist but the images can then be manipulated to change the age, demeanor, race and sex.
Here is an example of one of the fake people. I don’t think the process works. I tried enhancing her boobs…. nothing.
I can see a use for the process. Think of all the money that could be saved! Guys and Gals want to be the opposite sex? Don’t have the time and money for the whole sex change thing? Send a naked picture of yourself to the developers and get back a photo that can be manipulated. Girls you too can be hung like Johnny “Wad” Holmes.
Course there could be a down side. I searched for case law regarding virtual child porn and found only one result. It was a U.S, Supreme Court case that overturned the ban on virtual child porn. The issue is that the court has set a high standard in determining what is obscene. The justices are generally leery of suppressing First Amendment Rights.
They have supported a ban on child pornography. But not on the basis of obscenity. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). The justices came up with five criteria as to why kiddie porn was illegal. According to Wikipedia, The court in Ferber found that child pornography, however, may be banned without first being deemed obscene under Miller[3] for five reasons:
The government has a very compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children.[2][3]
Distribution of visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. The images serve as a permanent reminder of the abuse, and it is necessary for government to regulate the channels of distributing such images if it is to be able to eliminate the production of child pornography.
Advertising and selling child pornography provides an economic motive for producing child pornography.[2]
Visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity have negligible artistic value.
Thus, holding that child pornography is outside the protection of the First Amendment is consistent with the Court’s prior decisions limiting the banning of materials deemed “obscene” as the Court had previously defined it. For this reason, child pornography need not be legally obscene before being outlawed.
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982),
It would seem that this virtual photo composition and manipulation service could challenge one of the five reasons. I point to number two on the list. The virtual photo manipulation takes the child out of child pornography. Is it enough? I don’t think so, but then again I didn’t go to law school.
I’m just a broke down old retired narc. During my time as a narc I have sold the same kilos. Sometimes the contents were represented as cocaine, others as methamphetamine. The willing dope dealers were soon disappointed when their visions of titty dancers, Cadillacs and blow jobs were interrupted by my fellow narcs jumping out and yelling: “Surprise!” Or something like that. It is called a reversal. Cops posing as dope dealers. The buyers had the “want to.” They saw the product, they agreed to the price and they handed over the money.
In other words the dealers had the intent to buy drugs. The went beyond mere preparation by showing up at the agreed time and place. They consummated the deal by handing over the money. The only thing real was the jail and resultant prison time.
The producers of photo manipulated porn may know that the child images they produce never existed. However their distribution efforts are not likely to make that point clear to their customers. I guess there might be a case for false advertising.
I guess liberals would call virtual kiddie porn a win win. Pedophiles would get to spank the monkey to the hearts content. Real kids could go about unmolested. That is until the fantasy wore thin.
