4 ms·

> It is a well-settled point of law that a statement after the tortious act doesn't undo the tort What if the statement or image was labeled as a fake from its

> It is a well-settled point of law that a statement after the tortious act doesn't undo the tort What if the statement or image was labeled as a fake from its inception, not just "after the fact"? By your logic, this statement is defamatory/libel: "This statement is false: Barack Obama killed a man just to watch him die and also cheats at cards."

gamblor956 9y ago
Only by your logic. You are comparing apples to oranges. The apple is the original scenario: a deep fake with an accompanying and severable statement, not part of the deep fake, that the image/video is fake. (The severability of the statement matters. If you want to know why, get a Westlaw subscription and spend a few weeks reading defamation case law.) The orange is the statement about BO. The claim of falsity is intrinsically tied (structurally and contextually) to the false statement accompanying it; they are a single contextual unit. Moreover, the claim of falsity precedes the allegedly defamatory statement to which it is unseverably tied so it is clear at the time of publication that the statement is intended to be false. And let's not even get into the heightened standard that applies defamation claims for public figures...
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  You'll have to go into more detail about "severable statements" to convince me. Hand-waving towards a reference library doesn't really do it as a citation. > The claim of falsity is intrinsically tied (structurally and contextually) to the false statement accompanying it; they are a single contextual unit. I don't see how that can't or couldn't apply to a deepfake: the creator could name the file making clear it was a fake, or put a caption in corner of the video stating so. The "this statement is false" in my example seems just as separable as that. Someone could edit it out or fail to quote it, etc. Some of your other comments are about trivial issues: the grammar could be trivially changed to put the clause noting falsity at the end. I also used a public figure as an example, because the name came to mind quickly, but you might as well substitute a normal person's name for Obama's.

gamblor956 9y ago

Only by your logic. You are comparing apples to oranges. The apple is the original scenario: a deep fake with an accompanying and severable statement, not part of the deep fake, that the image/video is fake. (The severability of the statement matters. If you want to know why, get a Westlaw subscription and spend a few weeks reading defamation case law.) The orange is the statement about BO. The claim of falsity is intrinsically tied (structurally and contextually) to the false statement accompanying it; they are a single contextual unit. Moreover, the claim of falsity precedes the allegedly defamatory statement to which it is unseverably tied so it is clear at the time of publication that the statement is intended to be false. And let's not even get into the heightened standard that applies defamation claims for public figures...

Slansitartop 9y ago
You'll have to go into more detail about "severable statements" to convince me. Hand-waving towards a reference library doesn't really do it as a citation. > The claim of falsity is intrinsically tied (structurally and contextually) to the false statement accompanying it; they are a single contextual unit. I don't see how that can't or couldn't apply to a deepfake: the creator could name the file making clear it was a fake, or put a caption in corner of the video stating so. The "this statement is false" in my example seems just as separable as that. Someone could edit it out or fail to quote it, etc. Some of your other comments are about trivial issues: the grammar could be trivially changed to put the clause noting falsity at the end. I also used a public figure as an example, because the name came to mind quickly, but you might as well substitute a normal person's name for Obama's.