5 ms·

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 s

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...
      - pfisch 7y ago
        Yeah, and all we have to do to stop piracy is make it illegal. Right?
EliRivers 7y ago
From an outsider's perspective, simply riffing out loud, you're free to say (and draw) whatever you like. That's not inherently forbidden, but one is NOT free to deliberately cause distress or harm; you don't get a free ride just because your weapon of choice is words (or pictures). I'm free to hold a hammer in my hand; I have freedom-of-hammer-holding. I'm not free to threaten someone with it; my freedom-of-hammer-holding does not give me a free ride if that hammer becomes my weapon of choice. The problem isn't with the hammer, or me holding it; it's with me deliberately causing distress and harm. The problem isn't me saying something; the problem is with me deliberately causing distress and harm. Why should someone get a waiver when deliberately hurting people for their own pleasure, simply because the weapon of choice is words or pictures? A hand-drawn picture posted on your website would probably be more akin to self-harm in this particular example; I'm just riffing out loud on the idea that it's okay to hurt people for your own pleasure so long as the weapon is words (or pictures).
- justforyou 7y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted, but: This feels like slippery slope territory to me, especially in the current age of faux outrage. Look at what's happened to the political cartoon sans legal prohibition. Alsp the hammer example is a lot easier to justify because hammers aren't speech, and physical injury is objectively verifiable.
chrshawkes 7y ago
Um... harassment maybe? Why not also go to his place of employment, talk to all his coworkers and distribute the information manually to anybody you see, should that be legal?
stale2002 7y ago
Harrassment is a crime in most places. It doesnt really fall under free speech.
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  But your post makes me feel genearlly harassed, how can I know when I am just uncomfortable or annoyed?
  - dang 7y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      It's not unsubstantive. It demonstrates the vacuousness of treating unpleasant feelings the same as actual harm under the law.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    Well, US law is how you know. Harassment is not a new thing. It is covered in multiple different situations. Courts and juries and judges handle this stuff all the time.
dahart 7y ago
> I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. Freedom of speech is not absolute in the U.S., and never has been. There’s a fairly long list of boundary lines that are not protected and can get you in trouble if you cross them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech > 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? Maybe the same reason the state stops you from hitting or shooting people? Turn that around - why shouldn’t someone stop you from doing something mean, degrading or damaging to someone else publicly? We could discuss reasons why or why not, but that would also be beside the point. The current law defines illegal speech to include a whole bunch of things your nasty picture might constitute: the harm principle, the offense principle, libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, incitement, fighting words, right to privacy, and public security, just to name a few.

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...
    - pfisch 7y ago
      Yeah, and all we have to do to stop piracy is make it illegal. Right?

EliRivers 7y ago

From an outsider's perspective, simply riffing out loud, you're free to say (and draw) whatever you like. That's not inherently forbidden, but one is NOT free to deliberately cause distress or harm; you don't get a free ride just because your weapon of choice is words (or pictures). I'm free to hold a hammer in my hand; I have freedom-of-hammer-holding. I'm not free to threaten someone with it; my freedom-of-hammer-holding does not give me a free ride if that hammer becomes my weapon of choice. The problem isn't with the hammer, or me holding it; it's with me deliberately causing distress and harm. The problem isn't me saying something; the problem is with me deliberately causing distress and harm. Why should someone get a waiver when deliberately hurting people for their own pleasure, simply because the weapon of choice is words or pictures? A hand-drawn picture posted on your website would probably be more akin to self-harm in this particular example; I'm just riffing out loud on the idea that it's okay to hurt people for your own pleasure so long as the weapon is words (or pictures).

justforyou 7y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted, but: This feels like slippery slope territory to me, especially in the current age of faux outrage. Look at what's happened to the political cartoon sans legal prohibition. Alsp the hammer example is a lot easier to justify because hammers aren't speech, and physical injury is objectively verifiable.

chrshawkes 7y ago

Um... harassment maybe? Why not also go to his place of employment, talk to all his coworkers and distribute the information manually to anybody you see, should that be legal?

stale2002 7y ago

Harrassment is a crime in most places. It doesnt really fall under free speech.

whenchamenia 7y ago
But your post makes me feel genearlly harassed, how can I know when I am just uncomfortable or annoyed?
- dang 7y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    It's not unsubstantive. It demonstrates the vacuousness of treating unpleasant feelings the same as actual harm under the law.
- stale2002 7y ago
  Well, US law is how you know. Harassment is not a new thing. It is covered in multiple different situations. Courts and juries and judges handle this stuff all the time.

dahart 7y ago

> I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. Freedom of speech is not absolute in the U.S., and never has been. There’s a fairly long list of boundary lines that are not protected and can get you in trouble if you cross them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech > 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? Maybe the same reason the state stops you from hitting or shooting people? Turn that around - why shouldn’t someone stop you from doing something mean, degrading or damaging to someone else publicly? We could discuss reasons why or why not, but that would also be beside the point. The current law defines illegal speech to include a whole bunch of things your nasty picture might constitute: the harm principle, the offense principle, libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, incitement, fighting words, right to privacy, and public security, just to name a few.