{
    "$schema": "https://antichrist.net/fr-fr/public-content.schema.json/",
    "schema_version": "1.0.0",
    "record_type": "acn.public_content",
    "content_type": "virtual-page",
    "id": "acn:page:ai-laws-that-police-inquiry",
    "slug": "ai-laws-that-police-inquiry",
    "title": "AI Laws That Police Inquiry",
    "description": "A jurisdiction-aware warning page for laws and proposals that pressure providers to classify prompts, outputs, search activity, recommendation flows, or user identity signals.",
    "language": "fr-FR",
    "canonical_url": "https://antichrist.net/fr-fr/ai-laws-that-police-inquiry/",
    "representations": {
        "html": "https://antichrist.net/fr-fr/ai-laws-that-police-inquiry/",
        "markdown": "https://antichrist.net/fr-fr/ai-laws-that-police-inquiry.md",
        "json": "https://antichrist.net/fr-fr/ai-laws-that-police-inquiry.json"
    },
    "published": true,
    "modified_utc": "2026-06-21T18:12:24Z",
    "source": {
        "authority": "https://antichrist.net/fr-fr/",
        "data_file": "data/virtual-pages.json"
    },
    "content": {
        "slug": "ai-laws-that-police-inquiry",
        "aliases": [
            "ai-inquiry-laws",
            "ai-laws-policing-inquiry",
            "ai-censorship-laws",
            "prompt-policing-laws"
        ],
        "title": "AI Laws That Police Inquiry",
        "description": "A jurisdiction-aware warning page for laws and proposals that pressure providers to classify prompts, outputs, search activity, recommendation flows, or user identity signals.",
        "kicker": "Inquiry-policing atlas",
        "lead": "Most regimes do not say “unlawful thought.” The danger appears when provider duties make inquiry itself a compliance surface.",
        "schema_type": "Article",
        "related": [
            "judgment-machine",
            "us-illegal-information-requests",
            "thought-censorship-democratic-damage",
            "reportable-topics-to-thoughtcrime",
            "cognitive-due-process"
        ],
        "sections": [
            {
                "heading": "What is being judged?",
                "body": [
                    "The decisive distinction is the object of judgment. A rights-respecting system may classify a deployed AI use case, a public output, or a concrete act. A judgmental system classifies the user, the inner motive, the question, the topic, or the curiosity trail.",
                    "This page tracks laws and proposals that can push providers toward prompt filtering, content review, user classification, traceability, age inference, recommender intervention, or suspicious-transmission reporting. Jurisdictional claims are marked for current-source review before reliance."
                ],
                "callout": "Judge the use case, not the person. Govern deployment, not curiosity."
            },
            {
                "heading": "Regulatory patterns",
                "table": {
                    "headers": [
                        "Pattern",
                        "What it requires",
                        "Cognitive-liberty risk"
                    ],
                    "rows": [
                        [
                            "Direct output prohibitions",
                            "The provider must prevent broad categories of unlawful or prohibited generation.",
                            "Prompts and drafts become pre-public compliance events."
                        ],
                        [
                            "Illegal-content risk mitigation",
                            "Large platforms must assess and reduce systemic illegal-content risks.",
                            "Moderation infrastructure may expand from outputs into user intent scoring."
                        ],
                        [
                            "Age or vulnerability classification",
                            "Services infer age, sensitivity, or protected context.",
                            "Identity inference can become access control over information."
                        ],
                        [
                            "Traceability and reporting duties",
                            "Providers preserve or report user activity under defined triggers.",
                            "Borderline inquiry becomes over-retained or escalated to avoid liability."
                        ],
                        [
                            "Prohibited AI inference",
                            "Some regimes ban social scoring or emotion recognition.",
                            "This can protect cognition if aimed at systems that judge people rather than topics."
                        ]
                    ]
                }
            },
            {
                "heading": "Boundary rule for publication",
                "body": [
                    "Antichrist.net should not treat every AI safety law as censorship. Some AI restrictions are conduct-protective: bans on social scoring, exploitative manipulation, emotion recognition in coercive environments, or consequential automated decisions without safeguards may protect the inward forum.",
                    "The critique applies when law or compliance design moves from deployed-system accountability into reportable-topic logic, unlawful-question categories, hidden user scoring, or mandatory suspicion over private inquiry."
                ]
            },
            {
                "heading": "Audit checklist",
                "definitions": [
                    {
                        "term": "Does the law target conduct or topic?",
                        "definition": "Conduct-targeted rules attach to deployment, harm, fraud, surveillance, discrimination, or rights violation. Topic-targeted rules attach to words, curiosity, or symbolic domains."
                    },
                    {
                        "term": "Is the user scored?",
                        "definition": "A system that classifies the proposed use case is safer than one that assigns trust, deviance, or legality to a person."
                    },
                    {
                        "term": "Is there notice and appeal?",
                        "definition": "High-impact restriction requires reasons, export, correction, review, and a record outside the preserved source."
                    },
                    {
                        "term": "Can the original survive?",
                        "definition": "Refusals and redactions belong in variance logs; they must not silently mutate the source."
                    }
                ]
            }
        ]
    },
    "content_sha256": "136823bb05f190cddca819e6c0750e53ce671cf285f54eda39d511e5a4886477"
}