Why this score Minnesota state senator and the author of the state's nudification statute; authoritative and primary on what her own bill does and why it was written, but an interested party defending her own law against a live constitutional challenge, so her assertions about its First Amendment validity are advocacy rather than findings.
Tracked statements
2
? unverified
This ruling is another devastating reminder of how little the safety of women and children mean to men with money and power. Minnesota is the only state that has cut off predators’ access to technology to commit AI-image sexual abuse — and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals just gave child predators their favorite tool back.
Largely opinion. The checkable half — that Minnesota is the only state to bar the tools themselves — has not been tested against other states’ statutes. The appeals court’s 2 October order gave no reasons (Star Tribune).
The Minnesota nudification statute is consistent with the First Amendment; its author says the challenge is a defence of profits rather than of speech: "It's sad that the creators of nudification technology would rather protect their ill-gotten profits than protect us from image-based sexual abuse."
Still unadjudicated. The ban was in force from 1 August until the Eighth Circuit suspended it on 2 October in an unexplained order. No court has decided whether it is constitutional, and the trial court has paused the motion that would test it (Doc. 53).