3 ms·
>>Hustler Magazine v. Falwell That's not a "deepfake". One is a satirical printed ad aimed at a celebrity (satire has been pretty frequently protected speech)
by moate 7y ago
>>Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
That's not a "deepfake". One is a satirical printed ad aimed at a celebrity (satire has been pretty frequently protected speech) and the other is malicious creation of an artifact to attack random people (typically women). You know that there are plenty of unprotected forms of speech (harassment and assault at the top of the list) and it seems like that's what the legislature here is trying to do, add this to that list.
>>Does using a Charlie Sheen lookalike in the XXX version of Two and a Half Men constitute deepfake?
No. That actor isn't credited as "Charlie Sheen", he's credited as <actor's name>. This is not the same thing. He is not representing himself as actually being Charlie Sheen, but possibly the character of "Charlie Sheen".
You're a man of the law: how would you protect these women from revenge porn if this law offends you so? Or are you more of a "sticks and stones and sending my mother an image of what appears to be me getting penetrated in my asshole will never hurt me" type of guy?
- tptacek 7y agoMoreover, the entire point of Hustler v Falwell was that no reasonable person could have believed the Hustler piece was anything but satire, while the whole point of a "deep fake" is that the opposite is meant to be true. It's very strange to argue that deepfake revenge porn is in any way comparable to Hustler v Falwell; it seems like you'd have to be almost totally unfamiliar with that case – or with deepfakes, or with revenge porn – to draw a connection.
- zaroth 7y agoMaybe in the venn diagram of deep fakes and revenge porn, these are not two perfectly overlapping sets, and since first amendment issues have to pass strict scrutiny, the law could still be in Constitutional jeopardy? I Am Definitely Not A Constitutional Lawyer.
- moate 7y agoOr arguing in bad faith because you just think people should always be able to "say" whatever they want whenever they want because slippery slope >> thought police >> being an asshole sends you to jail.
- whenchamenia 7y agoFreedom of speech, should apply reguardless of good faith. Who would you have draw the line?