Forum: Author Hangout

The Google account shutdowns are not for sexually explicit content generally, but for materials deemed to be child sexual abuse materials.

just wondering where they 'draw the line', no I'm not talking about stuff that is clearly illegal but more shall we say grey. Just text stuff that confirms here etc.

just wondering where they 'draw the line', no I'm not talking about stuff that is clearly illegal but more shall we say grey. Just text stuff that confirms here etc.

All the stories I could find involved photos or video. Material that could qualify as child pornography under US law.

A couple of the stories involved photos alleged to be photos of the genitals of a minor child. The users claimed they were taken by by the user of their child to send to child's doctor for medical advice.

None of the instances I could find articles about involved text.

The relevant laws in the US only cover actual photos and/or actual videos of actual children (this is a First Amendment limitation).

You are correct, there is no real grey area, sexually explicit stories involving children are not illegal under US law.

But what if it is AI created? I have seen some stuff that you would be hard put to know the difference.

But what if it is AI created? I have seen some stuff that you would be hard put to know the difference.

A CGI image that realistic could be a problem, but the OP's concern was over stories, not images.

But I was responding to your post not the OP's where you mention photos and videos of kids.

But I was responding to your post not the OP's where you mention photos and videos of kids.

And I agreed that a CGI image that realistic could be problematic.

But if the image is not of a real kid would it still be illegal to post it.

But if the image is not of a real kid would it still be illegal to post it.

Technically, no, it wouldn't be illegal to post in the US (it could be illegal in other countries where the law is different).

That said, in a CP case in the US the government is not required to produce or even identify the specific child involved.

If you have a CGI image realistic enough that it's difficult to distinguish from a real photograph that by content could qualify as child pornography if it was a real image, you could be stuck proving that it's CGI in a criminal trial.

In Japanese animi they have no problem showing teenage boobies (mostly triple g's) but when it comes to the crouch they all have Barbie crouches.

when it comes to the crouch they all have Barbie crouches.

or pixels for the Real Life stuff

Although even this has nuance. It's illegal to show the genitals, but the anus is in a special category where it not a sexual organ on its own but becomes one if touched.

As a result, some JAV will show an actress' ass at such an angle that they don't need to censor anything, then as a toy approaches they censor the area.

I am most definitely not talking CP. what I am talking about is purely in the textual format. The whole point of the term grey is that these laws are under constant challenge, but in addition to that grey dictates areas where there is room for 'interpretation'. just because it's legal doesn't mean you'll be spared by the ban hammer for a perceived infraction regardless of current case law.

why on a site dedicated to text would you bring in stuff that is both illegal and unwelcome here?

just because it's legal doesn't mean you'll be spared by the ban hammer for a perceived infraction regardless of current case law.

Again, there is zero evidence that Google or anyone else is banning accounts over stories or discussion of stories.

All of the reported stories of Google account bans involved photos and/or video.

well I can say that I am/was such a case.
they put a block on my account, an account that has no 'media' on it other than text. is solely used for this site but I got a violation of terms of service, with no other explanations. I have that account again, but recent events had me wondering

but I got a violation of terms of service, with no other explanations.

Then you have no way of knowing that it was over sexually explicit material at all.

no I don't, that's why I didn't say that. what I am stating is a noticed 'pattern'

the question is what else could you suggest it was for an account that is used explicitly and exclusively in combination with this site?

I am stating is a noticed 'pattern'

The only provable pattern doesn't match your case.

the question is what else could you suggest it was for an account that is used explicitly and exclusively in combination with this site?

From Google's terms of service:
https://policies.google.com/terms/archive/19990920?hl=en

We reserve the right to terminate your account if we learn that you have provided us with false or misleading registration information, interfered with other users or the administration of Google's services, or violated these Terms of Service.

If you go to far in attempting to remain anonymous, that could do it.

where they 'draw the line'

My understanding from articles I've read in the past is that the line is whether there is an actual, real, specific child involved.

So text, cartoons, drawing, 3d modelling, etc. is legal because there are no actual children involved or affected.

Pictures, videos, etc. are not legal because there is an actual child involved.

The only grey area would be visual content of an adult trying/ pretending to look younger or images of same being distributed as younger. The content would be legal, but a person owning them might come under suspicion until and unless their actual nature was proven.

Note that all the above is from legal articles, not whatever Google might be doing. Also, the point about "specific" children doesn't mean that there's no crime if you don't know who the child is; rather it's to stop "think of the children" arguments against content like text and cartoons.