“That’s when I got angry,” she said during a disciplinary hearing, per the AP. The teenager admitted to attacking the student suspected of creating the AI photos and encouraging others to join her. As a result of her actions, the district sent her to an alternative school for 10 weeks.
According to a release from the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office, a male student is now facing 10 counts of unlawful dissemination of images created by artificial intelligence, and more charges could come.
She was suspended by the school for fighting. The boy was charged by the Sheriff’s office for crimes on AI nudes. The title is misleading to the point of misinformation.
Edit to add: I think there’s a lot of people missing the order of events here. When she was suspended they obviously knew about the fight. But at that moment the AI nudes were an accusation and there was no proof at that time. So they suspend the girl for the fight and give the investigation of AI nudes to the sheriff’s office because phone unlocking needs a warrant. The boy is later charged.
Tbh it sounds like a reasonably proportionate response. Just take any weapons off her and make her stop if she knocks him out. It would be a learning experience for the lad.
Misleading but not inaccurate. The girl was the victim of sexual harassment boarding on sexual assault and the school chose to do nothing. It was only AFTER she escalated the situation that anyone in a position of authority took notice.
Misleading when it makes you think situation x instead of reality y is misinformation. You have to jump through some serious mental hoops to say it’s accurate when it misleads you. “Oh oh oh that was on you I just tricked you that’s all”. Now how people looked into AI nudes is an entirely different matter. Honestly that you had to muddy the two together, well see the start of this response because you’re trying it too. Ciao.
I’ve noticed that Lemmy is actually getting worse than Reddit with all this propaganda. There’s just no comparable scale of moderation due to the way federated servers splinter mod teams.
That’s “zero tolerance” for you. I remember getting in trouble for fighting back against a bully while they didn’t get in trouble (or in as much trouble).
I think there’s a lot of people missing the order of events here. When she was suspended they obviously knew about the fight. But the AI nudes were an accusation and there was no proof at that time. So they suspend the girl for the fight and give the investigation of AI nudes to the sheriff’s office because phone unlocking needs a warrant.
I think there’s a lot of people missing the order of events here.
If you only read the OP article, I think that’s a reasonable conclusion.
But the AI nudes were an accusation and there was no proof at that time.
Read the linked AP article. They had many complaints/accusations, and corroborating photos and video from the bus available to them before they decided to suspend her, and before they sent her to the alternative school.
Which is not proof. Complaints are not proof. Accusations are not proof.
But the images were shared on Snapchat, an app that deletes messages seconds after they’re viewed, and the adults couldn’t find them.
Although the girls at Sixth Ward Middle School hadn’t seen the images firsthand, they heard about them from boys at school. Based on those conversations, the girls accused a classmate and two students from other schools of creating and spreading the nudes on Snapchat and possibly TikTok.
The principal, Danielle Coriell, said an investigation came up cold that day as no student took responsibility. The deputy assigned to the school searched social media for the images unsuccessfully, according to a recording of the disciplinary hearing.
There. They didn’t have any proof prior to the fight.
When the girl stepped onto the bus 15 minutes later, the boy was showing the AI-generated images to a friend. Fake nude images of her friends were visible on the boy’s phone, the girl said, a claim backed up by a photo taken on the bus. A video from the school bus showed at least a half-dozen students circulating the images, said Martin, the superintendent, at a school board meeting.
First off, this is the bus ride where the fight broke out as far as I read it. So any photos and videos of events in this bus were not available prior to this bus ride.
Second. How do you get those photos and videos (assuming it wasn’t a bus security camera which wouldn’t be able to make out the photos anyway)? You need a warrant to unlock student’s phones.
The proof of AI nudes came after the fight, from the sheriff’s department.
The title is not misleading in the least. The school took no actions against the boy. They did against her. The title has nothing to do with the Sheriff’s Office.
Wonder why it was the Sheriff’s office that took actions against the boy instead of the school? Because AI nudes are a crime. Not some minor school infraction. JFC. It’s jurisdiction if you really need it spelled out. And, the school took action against her for fighting, not because AI nudes were made of her like the title suggests.
“Instigation” and “Incitement” are crimes. It was the boy’s unreasonable and criminal acts of harassment against her that drove her to engage in the physical altercation. Those acts constitute “instigation”, and make him criminally responsible for the altercation.
Do they have proof of instigation or incitement or criminal acts? No, they have an accusation. Pretty sure you need a warrant to force students to unlock their phones. That’s the whole issue and that’s why it goes to the sheriff’s office to get that proof. They know she started a fight though. Y’all seriously need to understand some basic legal principles.
It was his egregious, deplorable, and criminal acts of harassment against her that caused her to engage in a physical altercation that she otherwise would not have engaged. That makes him responsible for the assault, not her.
I think you need to read a little more on the concepts like “instigation” and “incitement”. The actor is not always the person legally or criminally responsible for their actions.
I would remind you that she isn’t being charged: the state does not think she committed battery.
Did you read anything else I said? Proof. You need proof of AI nudes. You need a warrant to get proof. Without proof it’s an accusation. Ok I’m leaving this conversation because you refuse to read.
*Is it the order of events that has you confused? Event 1) the accusation. Event 2) the fight leading to the suspension. There is no proof of AI nudes at this point. Event 3) at a date far after the suspension, the sheriff’s investigation does get the proof. But the suspension is now in the past. Ok that’s as much goodwill I’m going to give you. Out.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. The school had to take some sort of action quickly after the fight, and you believe they didn’t have the full evidence available at that time. You’re arguing that they did the best they could with the information they had at the time.
Did you happen to click any of the links in the article?
She just felt like she was victimized multiple times — by the pictures and by the school not believing her and by them putting her on a bus and then expelling her for her actions,” her father, Joseph Daniels, said in an interview.
From that link:
When the girl stepped onto the bus 15 minutes later, the boy was showing the AI-generated images to a friend. Fake nude images of her friends were visible on the boy’s phone, the girl said, a claim backed up by a photo taken on the bus. A video from the school bus showed at least a half-dozen students circulating the images, said Martin, the superintendent, at a school board meeting.
The preponderance of the evidence available to the school at the time she was suspended was in her favor, and against the boy. Yet they chose to take action against her rather than him.
Does any of that win me a little more goodwill on the timeline?
I would note that the school had fucked up before the physical altercation, by putting her and her harasser in close proximity on the same bus, effectively unsupervised, after they were aware of the complaints she made against him.
And when it gets severe enough it warrants, oh I don’t know let’s just think here, an actual criminal investigation and actual judicial proceedings. You don’t want to (and can’t) leave criminal investigations up to some measly school admin. Don’t be absurd indeed. I’m gonna leave this conversation because you have no idea how things work. You fell for the clickbait and can’t get yourself out of it.
I believe you need a warrant (read judge) to force students to unlock their phone. So no I don’t believe they have jurisdiction or even the ability to investigate properly. That’s why it went to actual law enforcement.
She was suspended by the school for fighting. The boy was charged by the Sheriff’s office for crimes on AI nudes. The title is misleading to the point of misinformation.
Edit to add: I think there’s a lot of people missing the order of events here. When she was suspended they obviously knew about the fight. But at that moment the AI nudes were an accusation and there was no proof at that time. So they suspend the girl for the fight and give the investigation of AI nudes to the sheriff’s office because phone unlocking needs a warrant. The boy is later charged.
Tbh it sounds like a reasonably proportionate response. Just take any weapons off her and make her stop if she knocks him out. It would be a learning experience for the lad.
Misleading but not inaccurate. The girl was the victim of sexual harassment boarding on sexual assault and the school chose to do nothing. It was only AFTER she escalated the situation that anyone in a position of authority took notice.
Misleading when it makes you think situation x instead of reality y is misinformation. You have to jump through some serious mental hoops to say it’s accurate when it misleads you. “Oh oh oh that was on you I just tricked you that’s all”. Now how people looked into AI nudes is an entirely different matter. Honestly that you had to muddy the two together, well see the start of this response because you’re trying it too. Ciao.
But it creates outrage, and that’s what lemmy posts are made for. These people love being pissed off
I’ve noticed that Lemmy is actually getting worse than Reddit with all this propaganda. There’s just no comparable scale of moderation due to the way federated servers splinter mod teams.
The boy had “nude” photos of a 13 year old. Seems like child porn to me and not just AI nudes.
That’s “zero tolerance” for you. I remember getting in trouble for fighting back against a bully while they didn’t get in trouble (or in as much trouble).
I think there’s a lot of people missing the order of events here. When she was suspended they obviously knew about the fight. But the AI nudes were an accusation and there was no proof at that time. So they suspend the girl for the fight and give the investigation of AI nudes to the sheriff’s office because phone unlocking needs a warrant.
If you only read the OP article, I think that’s a reasonable conclusion.
Read the linked AP article. They had many complaints/accusations, and corroborating photos and video from the bus available to them before they decided to suspend her, and before they sent her to the alternative school.
Which is not proof. Complaints are not proof. Accusations are not proof.
There. They didn’t have any proof prior to the fight.
First off, this is the bus ride where the fight broke out as far as I read it. So any photos and videos of events in this bus were not available prior to this bus ride.
Second. How do you get those photos and videos (assuming it wasn’t a bus security camera which wouldn’t be able to make out the photos anyway)? You need a warrant to unlock student’s phones.
The proof of AI nudes came after the fight, from the sheriff’s department.
Yeah, zero tolerance might as well just be called zero thought or zero effort.
It would be ironic that schools so often pick the policy that avoids thought if I still believed schools were about teaching kids to think.
The title is not misleading in the least. The school took no actions against the boy. They did against her. The title has nothing to do with the Sheriff’s Office.
Wonder why it was the Sheriff’s office that took actions against the boy instead of the school? Because AI nudes are a crime. Not some minor school infraction. JFC. It’s jurisdiction if you really need it spelled out. And, the school took action against her for fighting, not because AI nudes were made of her like the title suggests.
“Instigation” and “Incitement” are crimes. It was the boy’s unreasonable and criminal acts of harassment against her that drove her to engage in the physical altercation. Those acts constitute “instigation”, and make him criminally responsible for the altercation.
Do they have proof of instigation or incitement or criminal acts? No, they have an accusation. Pretty sure you need a warrant to force students to unlock their phones. That’s the whole issue and that’s why it goes to the sheriff’s office to get that proof. They know she started a fight though. Y’all seriously need to understand some basic legal principles.
It was his egregious, deplorable, and criminal acts of harassment against her that caused her to engage in a physical altercation that she otherwise would not have engaged. That makes him responsible for the assault, not her.
I think you need to read a little more on the concepts like “instigation” and “incitement”. The actor is not always the person legally or criminally responsible for their actions.
I would remind you that she isn’t being charged: the state does not think she committed battery.
Did you read anything else I said? Proof. You need proof of AI nudes. You need a warrant to get proof. Without proof it’s an accusation. Ok I’m leaving this conversation because you refuse to read.
*Is it the order of events that has you confused? Event 1) the accusation. Event 2) the fight leading to the suspension. There is no proof of AI nudes at this point. Event 3) at a date far after the suspension, the sheriff’s investigation does get the proof. But the suspension is now in the past. Ok that’s as much goodwill I’m going to give you. Out.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. The school had to take some sort of action quickly after the fight, and you believe they didn’t have the full evidence available at that time. You’re arguing that they did the best they could with the information they had at the time.
Did you happen to click any of the links in the article?
From that link:
The preponderance of the evidence available to the school at the time she was suspended was in her favor, and against the boy. Yet they chose to take action against her rather than him.
Does any of that win me a little more goodwill on the timeline?
I would note that the school had fucked up before the physical altercation, by putting her and her harasser in close proximity on the same bus, effectively unsupervised, after they were aware of the complaints she made against him.
Sexual harassment and bullying are absolutely something schools have the capacity to punish. Don’t be absurd.
And when it gets severe enough it warrants, oh I don’t know let’s just think here, an actual criminal investigation and actual judicial proceedings. You don’t want to (and can’t) leave criminal investigations up to some measly school admin. Don’t be absurd indeed. I’m gonna leave this conversation because you have no idea how things work. You fell for the clickbait and can’t get yourself out of it.
The school is entirely capable of adding shit on top. They literally don’t even need an investigation to suspend a kid.
They didn’t even protect the victim when it was their jurisdiction.
I believe you need a warrant (read judge) to force students to unlock their phone. So no I don’t believe they have jurisdiction or even the ability to investigate properly. That’s why it went to actual law enforcement.