I don't really understand how that matters. She has never done any nude photography or porn. Just because she's a famous woman doesn't mean her body is public property, sick fuck.
Maybe you should make some AI images of Elon Musk getting gangbanged by niggers to see how much better men are at taking a joke?
When you are a public figure, any/all assumptions of protections from pornographic depictions by illustrators, be they AI or actual human beings, go out the window.
This was established in a legal case. Given, the case involved a humorous article rather than a graphic illustration, but an actual illustration of Jerry Falwell might've passed the Miller Test. If you ask me, I would do away with the Miller Test entirely, but that's another story.
To your point, I wouldn't bat an eye if Elon Musk was illustrated having his shitter shattered by a pack of niggers. People have been illustrating porn of celebrities for as long as the internet has been around. Before Stable Diffusion or Dall-E, people did it by hand. There's a reason Rule 34 exists which is hardly a joke at this point. That Swifties are getting up in arms over this reflects the shift in values with the left acting like the puritans they always were.
The key differences with the case involving a teen suicide over AI porn all come to the victim's age. She was a real human being and a minor. Thus, any pornographic depiction of her could legally be considered child pornography. The other important difference, as mentioned by others earlier, was that the victim was a private citizen. She's a teenage girl going to school, not a public figure. Private citizens are afforded a layer of protection that celebrities aren't.
Christ, you anti-erotica people are a tiresome lot, and the fact that this form of neopuritanism has been embraced by all too many people, left and right, reflects a disturbing trend which may very well erode civil liberties as we know them.
