The entire point of the term CSAM is that it excludes anything made-up. The acronym effectively stands for “photographic evidence of child rape.” If the act depicted did not happen, that is the wrong term.
The image can be criminal… but it’s not CSAM. For the same reason sending a living person a depiction of them getting skinned alive is a threat of murder, but cannot be a snuff film.
I’m honestly intrigued to know exactly where this falls on the legal system. How’s this gonna affect our social norms and ethics? I find it awful that people could even think on doing this, but if we can’t do anything with the other pedos, what can we do with them?
I can’t wrap my head around this
Doing this to real photos of specific people is already a crime, especially if they’re children. That’s been true since you had to use scissors and paste.
But there’s a lot of awful shit you can’t do for real that you’re still free to describe, or draw, or render. Even photorealistic fiction is still imaginary. We could easily say it’s super illegal to post such images online - but it’s fundamentally not the same kind of thing as inappropriate behavior toward a living human child. It’s made-up.
Pedo paste
Fuck off.
If no amount of ‘it can still be a crime’ is enough to stop people from lobbing accusations, you’re just reactionaries demanding censorship of the discussion of things that are already super illegal.
What? I was just making a gross joke about pedo paste
In the UK the law is about “prohibited images of a child” and they do not have to be photographs, but different jurisdictions will vary.
Such laws are often justified with reference to CSAM, but then cover more than it. Because people generally find paedophilia repugnant, it then gets treated the same even though no harm has been done, because nobody is willing to be labelled as the guy who “defends paedos”.