This proves too much. If you consistently require there be no "serious personal and professional consequences" before you trust a source, you'd have to dismiss almost all of them. 

And outside the US, statements the government finds offensive often run the risk of criminal prosecution as well. The existence of "stable rule of law" doesn't preclude this.

I'm on the lookout for more models like this

Here's a recent one where the quality is pretty good: f-lite. They say, "The models were trained on Freepik's internal dataset comprising approximately 80 million copyright-safe images."

I really like the title of this post!

two students did that stronger version in one or two days.

I believe this was just a call to PimEyes.

If we’re doing our utmost to avoid creating them, then the likelihood of having to destroy one is minimal

This is an unwarranted assumption about the effectiveness of your preventative policies. It's perfectly plausible that your only enforcement capability is after-the-fact destruction.

No, if one does not "approve of destroying self-aware AIs," the incentives you would create are first to try to stop them being created, yes, but after they're created (or when it seems inevitable that they are), to stop you from destroying them.

If you like slavery analogies, what you're proposing is the equivalent of a policy that to ensure there are no slaves in the country, any slaves found within the borders be immediately gassed/thrown into a shredder. Do you believe the only reasons any self-proclaimed abolitionists would oppose this policy to be that they secretly wanted slavery after all?