← Back to context

Comment by chrisjj

20 hours ago

> Are you from Sweden?

No. I used this interweb thing to fetch that document from Sweden, saving me a 1000-mile walk.

> Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"?

I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement.

And I said that because I saw only agreement. CSAM == child sexual abuse material == a record of child sexual abuse.

"No. I used this interweb thing to fetch that document from Sweden, saving me a 1000-mile walk."

So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition?

" I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement. "

Sorry, there are lots of different judical definitions about CSAM in different countries, each with different edge cases and how to handle them. I very doubt it, there is a disaggrement.

But my guess about your post is, that an American has to learn again there is a world outside of the US with different rules and different languages.

  • > So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition?

    I guess you didn't read the doc. It is in English.

    I too doubt there's material disagreement between judicial definitions. The dubious definitions I'm referring to are the non-judicial fabrications behind accusations such as the root of this subthread.

    • " I too doubt there's material disagreement between judicial definitions. "

      Sources? Sorry , your gut feeling does not matter. Esspecially if you are not a lawyer

      1 reply →