this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
389 points (92.0% liked)
Fuck AI
5268 readers
2563 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cafemom linked to the AP article they shortened.
No one is saying that. But you should stop looking for a perfect victim and look at how many adults failed her. The actual issue is she already gone to guidance counselor, principals and school sheriff looking for help but nothing happened. Even at her young age, she is learning that women are not believed while being sexually harassed. She already attempted to deal with the problem "the right way".
It's easy to armchair moralize that this child acted inappropriately. But I think the best quote of the article is...
I mentioned that I do understand why she did what she did. You add more information to this story that only increase understanding as far as I'm concerned.
Let me turn this into an extreme example for comparison's sake. If a parent shot their child's rapist and murderer, we all get it. Nobody will say "I have no idea why they would do such a thing." A lot of us outsiders would look at that case and even be glad about this outcome. And at the same time, the mother or father would end up in prison. Because you cannot take the law in your own hands and expect not to be punished for that. There will be mitigating circumstances, they won't go in for life. The punishment might just be exactly the time they spent in custody before their trial. But there will be punishment because we have rules about that. (Obviously, this example is not the same as this case of bullying. I'm only using it to compare consequences.)
Was this self defense? She was just defending her digital privacy? I'm not a lawyer. As a layman, I'm going to say this does not meet the legal criteria. Morally? Absolutely.
We can meter out appropriate punishment to everybody else here: the school that maybe responded badly. The parents of the dipshits who got their hands on an undress app. The fact that there are undress apps available to middle schoolers or anybody really. Etc. But we also have the benefit of hindsight.
You and I get why she threw punches. We might even go as far as cheering her on, in our heads, had we somehow been there. Go get those bastards, black eyes for all of them. My point was merely that if you resorted to violence like that you cannot expect not to be punished for it. Like in my extreme example, there are mitigating circumstances. Plenty of them. All should be considered. But there will be something on the record. In this case the suspension/probation, which I hoped is the punishment for every fight.
She got suspended and he didn't (yet, as we find out halfway through). The headline of the linked article in the post implied that this was the outrageous part. My criticism was aimed first and foremost at the writer/editor of that article.
Why do you say that?
She was being harmed and so she defended herself, and the harm stopped. Looks like self-defense to me.
In my view, self defense is a legal defense when somebody used violence to defend themselves against an immediate threat of physical harm. I don't see how, legally, you could expand the parameters to fit this case. But I'm also not a lawyer.
The argument it seems to me you could be building here is that the victim of despicable bullying, ignored and misunderstood by all the authorities, lashed out out of desperation. And that in itself is an act of self defense. I think that's a moral way to look at it, but not a legal one. The latter will look at this exactly as mitigating circumstances.
What is required is that there is a reasonable belief that they are in imminent physical danger. There are other factors, like attempting to deescalate and such, but she actually did that when she begged her school for help.
And being sexually harassed is reasonable reason to believe that they are in danger of sexual assault, or worse.
That's why, when the police got involved, the boy was arrested and now faces 10 charges. She has not been arrested and is not facing charges. Legally, she seems to be in the clear.
I'm going to have to agree with the other person; I don't think this qualifies as "self defense". HOWEVER, the egregiousness of his harassment does seem to rise to the level of "instigation", making him criminally responsible for the physical altercation. She's not being charged with assault and battery, but someone is responsible. He instigated that crime; he should be charged with it.
You clearly have a different take on the situation. A bunch of dipshits showing deepfakes around on a bus, ostensibly with other people around who are not party to this dispute and a grownup in the driver's seat, does not convince me that even your interpretation applies here. But neither one of us was present, we are both arm chairing this, we are just sitting in different arm chairs. Let's leave it at that.
I'm not going to leave it. You're wrong and you need to know it.
It wasn't just one instance on the bus. These AI nudes were being traded around for a while and it wasn't just happening to this one girl either. There were multiple victims that already been going to the school and the police for help. This was, essentially, a child pornography ring.
In the aftermath we see that the police also interpret the situation the way I do, which is why they arrested the boy while the girl who beat him up was not arrested. Not to say that the police should be totally trusted in legal matters, obviously, it's up to the court to determine the facts from here. I don't think the court is going to be sympathetic to this little creep.
In light of the fact that she and the other girls went to the authorities, what the fuck else were they supposed to do? Because it looks like beating this little creep up was actually the correct decision, because it got the legal ball rolling.
A small point of order: she didn't "beat him up". She threw a couple of punches. There's no reports he was in any way seriously harmed which what "beat up" as a term suggests to me.
Good point. That said, she should have beaten him up. 🤷♀️
Probably wouldn't stand up as well legally, though. Proportionality is also important when examining self-defense cases, she smacked him around just enough to get the police involved and get him arrested. That's a win.
I'll take your points under advisement but I'm most certainly done arguing about this.
You're the only one armchairing this and quite poorly. You seem to have a cop-drama level understanding of laws.
Unless you were present at the time, you are in the metaphorical arm chair as well.