On February 26, ABC News reports, Europol announced the arrest of 25 individuals it accuses of being “part of a criminal group engaging in the distribution of images of minors fully generated by artificial intelligence.”

Again, for emphasis: “Fully generated by artificial intelligence.”

Yes, sexual abuse of children is a horrific crime. Yes, those who engage in it are criminals. But can imaginary characters be “minors?” And are fictional depictions of those characters being victimized really “crimes?”

Over the years, politicians and law enforcement agencies have increasingly exploited such claims to groom the public into moral panic at the expense of REAL children suffering REAL sexual abuse in REAL life.

It’s a pretty simple con. Most people rightly find the sexual molestation of children horrifying. They want it stopped. They want the perpetrators brought to justice.

But investigating and proving real crimes is hard work.

Police departments would rather run sting operations with fake victims — cops posing online as minors available for sex — for easy arrests and good publicity, than put their officers to the more difficult (and expensive) task of conducting real investigations and tracking down real criminals.

Prosecutors would rather try those cases, which require no  evidence of an actual victim or an actual crime, than have to present a real victim, a real perpetrator, and real proof to a jury.

Politicians live in perpetual need of gut-wrenching topics to virtue signal to voters about, and since real child molestation and real child porn are already illegal, they make do with promoting new laws against fake child molestation, fake child porn, “child-like” sex dolls, etc. … and, as noted above, entirely fictional material “fully generated by artificial intelligence.”

None of this makes our children any safer — the real problems aren’t going away and for all we know might even be getting worse — but it’s great for law enforcement budgets and helps politicians herd panicked voters to the polls.

Your tax dollars at work, folks. And here’s the thing:

While the legal availability of AI-generated child pornography, “child-like” sex dolls, etc., wouldn’t eliminate real child sexual abuse, it would probably reduce the incidence.

Put another way, at least SOME pedophiles are probably prone to settle for fantasy, especially if the difference between fantasy and reality is the difference between freedom and imprisonment. If they face prison either way, more of them will opt to really molest real children instead of fantasize that they’re molesting fake children.

And to put it a third way: Those who support laws against “fully generated by artificial intelligence” child porn objectively support more real child porn, and more of the crimes that go into its creation.

That’s reality, not a story “fully generated by artificial intelligence.”

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On February 26, Jeff Bezos —  founder of e-commerce giant Amazon and space travel company Blue Origin — dropped a note to staff at his 2013 acquisition, the Washington Post,  “to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.” He also tweeted the note to the public:

“We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”

A single-word summary of those “pillars”: Libertarianism.

Does Bezos really plan to put the Post  in the “L” column — if not in terms of political partisan affiliation, at least where editorial ideology is concerned?

If so, huzzah and kudos.

While the American newspaper community finds itself blessed by a libertarian paper here and there, most of them are smaller community publications.

From the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to USA Today (and, until now anyway), the big players are 100% “establishment,” though sometimes leaning ever so slightly “left” or “right” within a narrow spectrum of acceptable opinion.

Apart from an occasional novelty column, libertarian ideas mostly find themselves excluded. The largest overtly libertarian-leaning newspaper outfit (and a fine one at that)  is the Orange County, California Register and its affiliated southern California chain. I love the Register, and not just because it occasionally publishes my own columns.

I’d love nothing more than seeing the movement I belong to get the Post as jewel in its media crown.

But as always, the devil is in the details. If I had a nickel for every time the word “libertarian” — or even phrases like “personal liberties and free markets” — got used incorrectly or dishonestly, I could spend my time racing my Ferrari between a Manhattan apartment and a gated-community LA McMansion instead of submitting libertarian op-eds to newspapers.

Does Bezos really support “free markets?” If so, how does that square with the billions of tax dollars the federal government spends with his companies — for example, the $10 billion contract Amazon has with the Pentagon for its “Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure” project, or Blue Origin’s billions of dollars in launch contracts with DoD and NASA?

Does Bezos really support “personal liberties?” If so, why does Amazon provide its Rekognition surveillance software to, among other government entities, US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement?

Color me skeptical. It seems more likely that Jeff Bezos’s version of “personal liberties and free markets” is just version 2.0 of Elon Musk’s whiny “free speech for me but not for thee” guff and corporate welfare queenery combo.

But please, Mr. Bezos, prove me wrong. And let me know if you’re looking for libertarian op-ed writers.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In mid-February, the White House barred Associated Press journalists from presidential events for refusing to change the name of a body of water from “the Gulf of Mexico” to “the Gulf of America” in its reporting.

AP sued on various grounds, including due process (citing a court ruling that press access to the White House “undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment”) and First Amendment protections (citing the same ruling).

On February 24, a federal judge refused to issue a temporary restraining order restoring AP’s access while the suit awaits resolution. AP reporters and photographers still possess White House press passes and can attend White House briefings; it’s the Oval Office and Trump’s personal presence  they’re excluded from.

Court precedent aside, I don’t see anything in the Constitution requiring the president to speak to, or the White House to “brief,” reporters at all, or specifying which particular agencies, publications, and journalists are part of a special protected class entitled to that kind of access.

In fact, I suspect many Americans wish that the president (not just this one — I’m speaking of the office, not the man)  acted a lot less like Dr. Phil (loud, annoying, omnipresent) and more like Punxsutawney Phil (silent, cute, and only very occasionally demanding our attention).

That said, if the press wants to cover the presidency, I suggest that the agencies, publications, and journalists get together and turn the tables.

Just as there’s no constitutional requirement for the president or the White House to host, humor, and answer to journalists, there’s no constitutional requirement for the press to cover the president or the White House at all.

Why don’t the major newspapers, television networks, etc. get together and set up the White House “press pool” on their own terms instead of subjecting themselves to the president’s terms?

They could rent, buy, or build a small studio/auditorium facility, handle their own journalist credentialing, and let the White House and the president know when they’ll be hosting briefings.

The president and/or press secretary could show up or not. If they showed, maybe they’d get some coverage. If not, there’s always other news to report, right?

In anything resembling a free society, an independent press is far more important than any functionary in any fancy office. America’s journalists should take that truth to heart and act on it.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY