Are We Criminalizing Thought? Minnesota’s AI Bill Challenges SCOTUS Precedent
Minnesota lawmakers are advancing legislation that would criminalize the creation and distribution of AI-generated images depicting child sexual abuse—even when no real child is involved. The bill proposes penalties of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines for disseminating such content. 
This legislation raises significant concerns about the boundaries of criminal law and the potential infringement on free expression. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), struck down a federal ban on virtual child pornography, emphasizing that depictions not involving real children are protected under the First Amendment. 
The proposed Minnesota bill appears to challenge this precedent by seeking to criminalize content that, while offensive to many, does not involve actual victims. This shift from punishing actions that cause direct harm to penalizing the creation of certain thoughts or expressions is a slippery slope.
Moreover, the legislation could have unintended consequences. By focusing on the criminalization of AI-generated content, resources might be diverted from addressing actual cases of child exploitation. There’s also the risk of overreach, where individuals could face severe penalties for content that, while distasteful, does not result in tangible harm.
As technology evolves, it’s crucial to ensure that our laws protect individuals without infringing upon fundamental rights. Criminalizing content that lacks a real-world victim sets a concerning precedent.
What comes next? Arresting players of the video game “Call of Duty” for murder?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have a friend in a Michigan prison who was prosecuted for a “crime” allegedly committed WHILE he was serving time for a different crime. They accused him of WRITING stories about having sex with children while in the prison. He admitted doing it, so he figured that he might as well plead guilty. It added several years to his original sentence. Obviously, the problem is that the prosecutor called it a depiction of children having sex, which is illegal. In reality, it was a description, which is a far cry from a depiction involving actual images of real children. In essence, he was convicted for something which is not a crime, because of the flawed interpretation of the prosecutor AND the judge, who should have enough knowledge of the law to throw that case out. I contacted the Michigan ACLU to see if they would take up an appeal, but they said they only take cases involving a violation of rights that could affect many people. Seems to me if a court can get away with convicting people for non-existent crimes there, they could try to do it to anyone else in the future.
Gerald
Something you said hits home to me. You spoke about the appeal to the ACLU denying help. Where I live a group of non profit lawyers made an ad that they would help anyone who needs help with their legal battles for free if they are at poverty level. I called them and the first thing they said to me was “Sorry, we do not take on sex offense cases or even help with filling out forms”. Basically, saying we are not “Anyone”.
I told them they should put in your ad that you help everyone, BUT those with a sex offense. They hung up on me.
Understand that any child porn in any form is NOT acceptable from the court’s standpoint, because it leads to actual children being harmed. So, I will stand with the courts on this one.
Respectfully, Mr. D., setting aside that there’s no healthy reason to have even AI generated images and strictly speaking from a legal perspective… how do you see a causal connection?
If we criminalized fictional depictions, every person playing one of these video games which depicted shooting or everyone that produced an action film would be arrested. Stallone would be doing life!
In the context of the school shooting epidemic, people have argued that violence depicted in video games or movies leads to school shootings, but if there was any empirical evidence of that, the games and movies wouldn’t exist and/or people would be arrested for playing them.
Taking it one step further, almost everyone has seen the movie Scarface, but not everyone has then become a murderous drug dealer. Not everyone who has played a violent video game has gone on to shoot up a school.
Just for the sake of argument… there’s a market for violent video games and action films. Producers of these games and movies create fictionalized renditions using stunt persons, special effects, CGI, AI, etc., because actually killing people is frowned upon (ask Alec Baldwin).
By your argument, these games and films should be illegal because (setting aside the Alec Baldwin example), real people are being killed, but that’s not the case.
Maybe they too will need to be banned as well, time will tell. But I get the gist of what you are saying though.
It was already settled when music was attempted to be censored ages ago and was told they had to mark the packaging with a warning label but could not be censored for the content therein.
I can see a time where this is content is still legal by court order and opinion but must be marked with a label as precedent sets from ages ago. That does not imply or mean I condone it, but based on legal basis…
some friends you have????
disgusting!!!!!!!
G, are you his counsel?
Poor 👶 ..lol
Guilty as charged.
Imagine the horror of being prosecuted by the feds, sent to prison, losing everything you’ve worked for, using your life savings to defend yourself, only to be found guilty of possessing CP where there is NO IDENTIFIED VICTIM AND NO PROOF OF ACTUAL CHILDREN. This happened to me!!!
Another victim