11 ms·

> The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent —often called revenge p

by apo 7y ago

> The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent —often called revenge porn —as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill updated the law by adding a category of "falsely created videographic or still image" to the text. This is a strange law: > Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person" includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-386.2 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-386.2 A kid makes a pencil drawing of the school principal in a compromising situation and posts it to Instagram. Legal? A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram. Legal? A kid uses software he downloaded to generate a realistic depiction of the school principal in a compromising situation and posts it to Instagram. Legal?

pfisch 7y ago
> A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram. Probably legal. It is satire meant to be political commentary. Not distributed with the intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate" As for the other ones idk, probably illegal. The last one almost certainly is, and honestly it probably should be.
- solotronics 7y ago
  Why? I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. If I want to draw a picture of you doing something nasty and post it to my own website why should the state stop me?
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. Because thanks to some puritanical supreme court rulings over the past century or so, freedom of speech doesn't cover things considered 'obscene'. This has been variously interpreted to include pornography, information on birth control and abortion, and a variety of other things.
  - curryst 7y ago
    IANAL, but at least for images that are designed to appear to be, or likely to be perceived as, a real photograph, it strikes me as comparable to libel or slander. To me, the distinction is whether a viewer is likely to interpret the image as satire or general humor, or if they are likely to believe that it is genuine photographic evidence of a compromising event. Satire and humor are protected You drawing a picture is unlikely to pass that muster. Deepfakes, on the other hand, are generally designed to be falsified images. I think the interpretation of this will lean heavily on being able to prove intent.
    - zzo38computer 7y ago
      As long as it includes a disclaimer that it is a fake (even though it appears to be a real photograph), I do not complain about it, because I like freedom of speech.
      - jakobegger 7y ago
        Disclaimers are useless because people strip them when they repost the image
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        Make stripping disclaimers illegal? Like stripping copyright claims. Removing the disclaimers is in most cases breaking copyright anyway. It does not count as a remix. It does not count as a quotation and definitely not as archival. That bit is easy to detect most of the time...
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  The point is that it is an obviously badly thought out law. We have hate speech laws in the UK and they are causing havok, comedians are getting investigated by the police for jokes (Jo Brand a feminist comedian was investigate last month for a what was obviously a joke because people claimed it was a call to violence). Teenage girls are being arrested for posting rap lyrics on facebook (Chelsea Russell case). People taking the mickey (which isn't harassment) out of someone by making a deepfake (there are Deep Fakes of Jordan Peterson having sex with a flesh light in a chair) will be caught under this law probably. It will be a mess. Will photoshops of celebrities faces on pornstars be part of this? some are quite convincing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
asveikau 7y ago
> A kid I think we can probably agree kids would be wise to avoid doing the specific things you mentioned. But importantly, when a kid breaks a law there is typically a separate system for juveniles...
- stickydink 7y ago
  There's a separate system for how it's responded to, but the same laws apply, and the same act remains illegal
sandworm101 7y ago
Fine print. >> where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. First amendment gives authorization. Had they meant the more colloquial "without permission of the subject" they would have said so. They are allowing authorization from a variety of sources, the constitution included. So #2 is fine as basically anything to do with the president, in his role as president, is fair game. And they said you have to know or reasonably know that you do not have permission. So the inner thoughts of the artist is an issue and it is very hard to prove knowledge of a negative fact. If you think you have permission somehow, then maybe you do. So if the kid thinks the constitution protects his work, maybe that's enough to avoid the law even where the constitution does not. It's a badly written law. I suspect written by people who know it is doomed to fail.
nitrogen 7y ago
> ...with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates... This part matters
DanBC 7y ago
1: legal 2: legal 3: legal, unless there's intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate which would tip it into being illegal.

by apo 7y ago

pfisch 7y ago

> A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram. Probably legal. It is satire meant to be political commentary. Not distributed with the intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate" As for the other ones idk, probably illegal. The last one almost certainly is, and honestly it probably should be.

solotronics 7y ago
Why? I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. If I want to draw a picture of you doing something nasty and post it to my own website why should the state stop me?
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. Because thanks to some puritanical supreme court rulings over the past century or so, freedom of speech doesn't cover things considered 'obscene'. This has been variously interpreted to include pornography, information on birth control and abortion, and a variety of other things.
- curryst 7y ago
  IANAL, but at least for images that are designed to appear to be, or likely to be perceived as, a real photograph, it strikes me as comparable to libel or slander. To me, the distinction is whether a viewer is likely to interpret the image as satire or general humor, or if they are likely to believe that it is genuine photographic evidence of a compromising event. Satire and humor are protected You drawing a picture is unlikely to pass that muster. Deepfakes, on the other hand, are generally designed to be falsified images. I think the interpretation of this will lean heavily on being able to prove intent.
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    As long as it includes a disclaimer that it is a fake (even though it appears to be a real photograph), I do not complain about it, because I like freedom of speech.
    - jakobegger 7y ago
      Disclaimers are useless because people strip them when they repost the image
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        Make stripping disclaimers illegal? Like stripping copyright claims. Removing the disclaimers is in most cases breaking copyright anyway. It does not count as a remix. It does not count as a quotation and definitely not as archival. That bit is easy to detect most of the time...
davesmith1983 7y ago
The point is that it is an obviously badly thought out law. We have hate speech laws in the UK and they are causing havok, comedians are getting investigated by the police for jokes (Jo Brand a feminist comedian was investigate last month for a what was obviously a joke because people claimed it was a call to violence). Teenage girls are being arrested for posting rap lyrics on facebook (Chelsea Russell case). People taking the mickey (which isn't harassment) out of someone by making a deepfake (there are Deep Fakes of Jordan Peterson having sex with a flesh light in a chair) will be caught under this law probably. It will be a mess. Will photoshops of celebrities faces on pornstars be part of this? some are quite convincing.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

asveikau 7y ago

> A kid I think we can probably agree kids would be wise to avoid doing the specific things you mentioned. But importantly, when a kid breaks a law there is typically a separate system for juveniles...

stickydink 7y ago
There's a separate system for how it's responded to, but the same laws apply, and the same act remains illegal

sandworm101 7y ago

Fine print. >> where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. First amendment gives authorization. Had they meant the more colloquial "without permission of the subject" they would have said so. They are allowing authorization from a variety of sources, the constitution included. So #2 is fine as basically anything to do with the president, in his role as president, is fair game. And they said you have to know or reasonably know that you do not have permission. So the inner thoughts of the artist is an issue and it is very hard to prove knowledge of a negative fact. If you think you have permission somehow, then maybe you do. So if the kid thinks the constitution protects his work, maybe that's enough to avoid the law even where the constitution does not. It's a badly written law. I suspect written by people who know it is doomed to fail.

nitrogen 7y ago

> ...with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates... This part matters

DanBC 7y ago

1: legal 2: legal 3: legal, unless there's intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate which would tip it into being illegal.