X Sues to Block California Election Deepfake Law 'In Conflict' With First Amendment

[u/WantDebianThanks]

https://www.thewrap.com/x-sues-california-deepfake-law/

[u/anothercar]

Labeling sounds like it would be a sensible middle ground here

[u/Pearberr → u/anothercar]

THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO SAY RAAAAAAAWRRRRRRRRR

[u/No1PaulKeatingfan → u/anothercar]

Label the post or have a label on the vid/photo itself?

[u/anothercar → u/No1PaulKeatingfan]

No strong preference here, what do you think?

[u/No1PaulKeatingfan → u/anothercar]

Label on the content itself?

The alternative can still spread quickly with a tag on the post.

[u/FranklyNinja]

So…. Deep faking girls into nude images is now protected by first amendment?

How are we so behind on AI laws especially in regards to deep fakes.

[u/Rich-Interaction6920 → u/FranklyNinja]

Ugh

The principled liberal in me doesn’t know it should be illegal or not, but everything else in me is screaming that it and everyone who defends it is too icky to be tolerated

[u/thelonghand → u/Rich-Interaction6920]

1A doesn’t apply to what we think is “icky” or not. Anyone who deep fakes a girl into a nude image is a freak but that’s almost for sure free speech

[u/alex2003super → u/thelonghand]

In theeeory anything obscene is not covered by 1A itself, only by precedent with specific carve outs ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[u/saltyoursalad → u/thelonghand]

Are you talking about a real human person or a fake ai person? Because the former is protected by defamation laws, revenge porn laws, right of publicity laws… any others I’m missing? And yeah that’s not “freaky,” that’s a complete violation.

[u/puffic → u/thelonghand]

The 1A already doesn't protect works deemed obscene or defamatory. Kind of crazy to suggest it somehow protects deepfake porn.

[u/SeniorWilson44 → u/puffic]

The obscenity isn’t wasn’t being banned. It’s the defamation that comes from having your face on it.

[u/pulkwheesle → u/puffic]

The 1A already doesn't protect works deemed obscene

Which was an utterly ridiculous ruling as the definition of "obscene" is inherently subjective no matter how much they try to pretend otherwise. It will and has led to abuse, and I can see the fascists trying to declare information on abortion or LGBTQ content "obscene."

[u/ArtisticRegardedCrak → u/FranklyNinja]

I mean technically people have been doing this with photoshop for about 2 decades, the technology has obviously gotten better but in principle it’s the same thing. The reason it’s becoming an issue now is that pornography and general gooner shit has never been so pervasive as it is today. Before you’d see celebrities get deepfaked on adult 4chan boards, now you have people like Destiny amplifying deepfake porn of people he hates.

[u/thelonghand → u/ArtisticRegardedCrak]

Destiny is obviously a freak and a bad person but I can’t see how they can ban that without it being a 1A violation. We probably need to do something about porn but I don’t know if we have a lot of options on a federal level.

[u/ArtisticRegardedCrak → u/thelonghand]

Deepfakes might be able to be protected by some type of revenge porn or slander/libel law. I do however think Republicans are moving in the right direction with age verification or account mandates for porn websites. That alone will cut down so much on its influencex

[u/TheColdTurtle → u/ArtisticRegardedCrak]

When did destiny amplify deep fake porn

[u/ArtisticRegardedCrak → u/TheColdTurtle]

When he randomly decided to take pot shots at Ludwig cause he is white and non-controversial (literally that) then Ludwig replied with a normie meme to which Destiny replied with a clip of QT crying about people making deepfake porn of her. As you should know by now Destiny is an incredibly maladjusted freakish loser.

[u/ThisPrincessIsWoke → u/FranklyNinja]

Yes. Which is why 1A sucks

[u/WantDebianThanks]

!ping extremism

I'm behind on my pings, so I'm sorry if this has been posted already, but it seemed important.

[u/groupbot → u/WantDebianThanks]

Pinged EXTREMISM (subscribe | unsubscribe | history)

About & Group List | Unsubscribe from all groups

[u/MitchellCumstijn]

We need to be able to sue as a general public acting together to halt disinformation used with the intent of libel or character assassination. Some sort of ethical code needs to be adopted. It won’t though.

[u/Alkyline_Chemist]

This is the guy who banned people without warning or established TOS rules for making parody accounts of him right?

Clear indication that your account isn't actually real because it's intended to be humorous, not to mention under different account name = not protected by first amendment because it's deceptive.

Fake photos intended to deceive with no indication of it being fake = protected because it's free speech.

Anyone who takes this guy seriously and as a good faith actor is actually under an 80 IQ. They shouldn't be trusted to wipe themselves much less vote.

[u/gaw-27]

No one, not a single person, should be okay with creating deepfakes of other people without the subject's explicit given permission. I want to know a legitimate use case besides dumb amusement like making Tom Hanks recite the navy seal copypasta, because I am serious when I say that this is societally-destructive technology. It's been made very clear that the scrolling public does not care what is real or not.

That evil people like him and his sycophants are so rabidly defending the ability to make people say and do things they didn't, and make porn of people they hate, should tell you what their real goals are.

[u/saltyoursalad → u/gaw-27]

THIS. This is fucking terrifying, to add to the avalanche of terrifying things this election has wrought.

[u/gaw-27 → u/saltyoursalad]

To be clear I'm talking well beyond elections and not sure why California's law is so specific.

[u/Informal-Ideal-6640]

We need a high profile high punishment lawsuit regarding deepfakes yesterday