4 ms·
>that type of content Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. I don't see a set of metrics that can capture tha
by daenz 7y ago
>that type of content
Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. I don't see a set of metrics that can capture that "type" of alteration that doesn't also capture tons of content. Unless, of course, you go down the route of saying "it's illegal to post any altered video or image of any politician."
- devoply 7y agoI don't see any such law passing first amendment challenge that's why the modern censorship for the right reason supporting centrist is down relegating it to private corporations that are not beholden to the US constitution. Ultimately the fact is that freedom of speech does not actually work if people have actual freedom of speech. It only works under certain circumstances where most of the media toes the line with the political establishment and is relatively controlled.
- raxxorrax 7y agoI disagree profoundly. Free speech only "works" if it isn't free? Would need additional arguments for that...
- sgt101 7y agoWhat would be the problem of making it illegal to alter video or images of politicians?
- cr1895 7y agoIt plainly violates the 1st amendment.
- AlexTWithBeard 7y agoThis and also sometimes a video has to be edited to make it watchable: remove the pauses, cut long sentences a bit...
- mc32 7y agoThrow parody and mashups out the window? Ban SNL, ban the daily show?
- oconnor663 7y agoIf a politician gives a 20 minute speech, and I edit together a 1 minute summary of it, is that "altered"? Does it matter whether I chose the clips to make the politician look foolish? Who gets to decide what counts as foolish?
- roenxi 7y ago> Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. It isn't unusual to misrepresent a politician's message. It certainly isn't unusual for partisans to refuse to fairly represent their opponent's central point - either through a sense of mischief, because they just don't understand it or a genuine belief that there are more important issues at stake. This video is clearly a low blow, and deceptive, but it isn't at all obvious that it is different from lying about something that Nancy Pelosi said. 'Solving' that in any way will likely cause some spectacular partisan fireworks when a difficult case comes by. Whoever gets control of the body that gets to choose what is fact and what is fiction is going to have disproportionate power.
- raxxorrax 7y agoThat standard would also not be met by traditional outlets. Cutting videos to underline the message of a text is pretty common. This is not a new problem.