If you are of a certain age, you may recall an ad that promised x-ray glasses for only a dollar. They didn’t work. But due to the wonders of Internet technology those promises from the 1950’s can now be fulfilled. A new Internet service has put an end to doodling during Internet business meetings! Participants send photos of their fellow attendees and receive naked images of them in return. Rumor has it that Jeffrey Toobin has a lock on product endorsement.

The automated service, freely available on the web, allows users to anonymously submit photos of clothed women and receive altered versions with the clothing removed, according to a 20 October article in the Washington Post. Already more than 100,000 females— including some under the age of 18 — have had their photos thus altered. If we required more proof that pornography needs to be regulated, this technology provides it.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/30/new-deep-fake-app-that-undresses-women-more-reason-to-restrict-internet-porn/

I am not sure whose ox is being gored here. Like the X-ray glasses of yester-year the AP doesn’t see thru anything. Whatever images that are returned, are not images of the intended target. This is not like taking “upskirt” photos. In this instance, the resulting image is a composite. It, as a whole, never existed in reality. Is it illegal? Probably not. Should it be? Again, I would say probably not. Does this mean that the user should not be sanctioned in some manner? I didn’t say that.

It used to be that behavior was governed not only by law, but by societal expectations. Those societal expectations may have seemed arbitrary but the ability to reward or punish behavior based on accepted modes of behavior was powerful.

Dueling was once a popular method of arbitrating social differences. There were precise rules governing how a duel would be carried out. Should one member of the of the duel fail to follow the rules, the punishment was instantaneous. It was also carried out by the cheater’s designated second (supporter). Failure to follow the rules either as principal or second resulted in social ruin.

Times change, BJ Bill Clinton, the serial rapist. Teddy Kennedy and Christopher Dodd, “We’ll have a waitress with noting on her”, and Dementia Joe, “come here little girl”, suffered no social disability for their deviance. They argued that they had done nothing illegal. Morality was an outmoded concept and did not apply.

Liberals have done their best to remove morality from the judgment of right and wrong. According to liberals, to hold a deviate to a moral standard is exclusionary and biased. Behavior is either legal or illegal. Bullshit.

The next step is to put judges, prosecutors and cops in a position to knock the bright line of legal verses illegal to tones of gray. It’s not illegal, or if it is, it’s only by a little bit. Now we have prosecutors subverting the justice system with arbitrary decisions, based on political considerations as to who and when to prosecute.

Next thing you know here we are. Videos of Hunter Biden smoking crack, exposing himself to minor female relatives and screwing Chinese children are blown out proportion because of who his daddy is.

Let’s put judgment of Hunter Biden into a different context. Thanksgiving is coming. Would you invite Hunter Biden to Thanksgiving dinner?

This seems to be a case of problem identification as a distraction. This as opposed to problem identification in need of a solution.