It doesn't mean only that, but in this context it's implicit.

Its images of kids. Do we REALLY need to know the details of the photos? Whether the kid responsible was using AI to "undess" or do much worse, its going to be massively harmful shit to the mental wellbeing of the girls involved.

I worked a number of years at the DOJ, the effect this sort of stuff has on children is horrifying. In one case we had a 12 year old girl who was abused and had photos taken of her. She suicided mid trial, causing the judge to have to call a mistrial due to technicalities regarding

I thought it was required for people in authority to report these incidents and it was a crime not to.

The gender of the alleged criminal probably hasn't been released.

Unless the boy was white, in which case they would probably do exactly what they did.. nothing. School administrators who report white boys tend to find themselves on the wrong end of parental outrage for ruining his life for 'just being a boy!'.. Lancaster is a deep red county, meaning 'tough on crime' and 'reporting' laws are NOT designed for little white boys, only getting those scary dark ones into prison where they belong.

How likely is it that a girl would make or fake pornographic images of other girls in her neighborhood and show them around? Among whom? Other girls? Some boys?

(Is there even one precedent that would have become known?)

Anyway, an [1]article on Lancaster Online [lancasteronline.com] from August clearly refers to “the boy” as the perpetrator. He was also 9th grade, so you were right or close with the "14 y.o. boy". You should have stopped there, before starting to ideologize it...

[1] https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/authorities-investigate-reports-of-ai-generated-nude-images-featuring-lancaster-country-day-students/article_49cf24d0-658c-11ef-b8de-0f35cffb17dc.html

Which is probably why administrators were reluctant to report anything. Given the area, they tend to see reporting laws as something for getting brown kids into the prison system, NOT something to 'ruin the lives' of little white boys. If it had been a dark skinned kid making deepfakes of white classmates, he would probably be in juvenile detention.

> And now this person is going to end up on the registry.

I don't know Pennsylvania's laws, but many US states have special laws for young (typically under 18 or under 21) first-time sex offenders so they aren't automatically put on the sex-offender registry and which allow them to get removed much earlier if they are forced to register.

Kids do not always understand the consequences of their actions or the gravity of them relative to our society. It sounds like a big deal that they did 50 of them but they could literally take their yearbook, take a picture of it with their iPhone and then run the picture through any one of several programs to generate the nudes in mass.

It's one of those things where at a certain point when we as a civilization have made it so easy to commit a crime I have a hard time wanting to bring the full force of

> And now this person is going to end up on the registry. Goodbye future and hello ankle monitor whenever he or she gets out of lockup.

Don't forget to say hello to Matt Gaetz. This person will be able to be Attorney General someday.

A GOP DEI hire includes child molesters.

> Is pasting a kids face on a drawing a nude adult enough to call it child porn?

yes.

Some states also categorize sexual cartoons or paintings of completely made up children as child pornography, and there have been prosecutions for possession of japanese cartoons depicting "under-age" characters engaged in sex. Since until quite recently (2023), the age of consent in Japan was 13, there was quite a lot of "Japanese school girl fantasy" type artwork out there. It was pretty gross to see some old guy reading that stuff on the train when I lived there.

There are. indeed, laws against generating content depicting the sexual exploitation of minors, even if it is entirely fictitious - and this is not entirely fictitious because they are based on real people. I understand that you feel this skirts close to the edge of so called "thought crime", but in this case, the violation is not simply in creating the pictures, but in then distributing them.

The creator's rights - whatever you may imagine them to be - end where the rights of the girls in question begin

> the right to free speech and free expression must be upheld

Unless, of course, you say something truly horrific, like "this is actually Hunter Biden's laptop" ...

> if they're generated images, then they can't rise to the level of abuse, since the majority of the content is fake

They are invasions of privacy. While we usually think of privacy as protecting disclosures of sensitive information, that's only just one kind of privacy intrusion. The legal and ethical issues of privacy are actually considerably broader. They have to do with a whole host of issues relating to your right to personal autonomy.

For example if you are in a public place people are free to observe you, or even in most jurisdiction to film you. But if someone follows you around observing you to the point that

Aren't most nude deep fakes just photoshopping someone's head on someone else's nude body. So isnt the original nude photo considered child porn? The "AI" part is just automating it.

> If someone generated AI “deep fakes”, then what abuse took place? While those images are generally distasteful, rude, offensive, and invasive, if they're generated images, then they can't rise to the level of abuse, since the majority of the content is fake, and therefore protected until freedom of expression / speech.

Today I learned Michelangelo & Leonardo da Vinci are criminals because they created images of people without clothes on.