2 ms·

So you’d be ok with someone using AI to generate an image of your self/spouse/child doing something unspeakably awful and putting it up on billboards around tow

So you’d be ok with someone using AI to generate an image of your self/spouse/child doing something unspeakably awful and putting it up on billboards around town with a suggestion that people take matters into their own hands? That’s “expression”. What I’m trying to do is come up with a hypothetical where you really would like there to be a test for what is and is not protected. The Supreme Court called spending money on political campaigns “expression” in the Citizens United decision, do you support that? You can call literally any act expression, the extreme of which is literally anarchy.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>The Supreme Court called spending money on political campaigns “expression” in the Citizens United decision, do you support that? Yes... I do. Why should Donald Trump be able to spend millions of his own money to create political speech, but I can not spend $1 along with 1 million of my friends to counter is. Contrary to what the common tag line is of "corporations are people now" the court recognized that corporations are made up of people, as such the people acting as a group ( corporation) are entitled to protections just as if they were acting alone as an individual. >>So you’d be ok with someone using AI to generate an image of your self/spouse/child doing something unspeakably awful and putting it up on billboards around town with a suggestion that people take matters into their own hands? Well that escalated quickly, that said in generally... I would probably consider that protected. The last part would be murky as I so recognize the "True Threat" doctrine, of course I am also a self defense absolutist along with a free expression absolutist, so if the hypothetical bill board expressed a true threat I believe it with in my ethical right to defend myself from that true threat.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Citizens united was clearly about expression as the term is commonly understood. Upholding the law would have given the government power to ban books, pamphlets, and most forms of communication commonly understood to be first amendment speech. Per the government's argument, "the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union." It wasn't some crazy hypothetical about violence being an act of personal expression, or something like that. It was about other people can organize to share verbal, written, and recorded political ideas. As with many Supreme Court rulings, the political spin far eclipsed the actual decision and arguments.

phpisthebest 3y ago

>>The Supreme Court called spending money on political campaigns “expression” in the Citizens United decision, do you support that? Yes... I do. Why should Donald Trump be able to spend millions of his own money to create political speech, but I can not spend $1 along with 1 million of my friends to counter is. Contrary to what the common tag line is of "corporations are people now" the court recognized that corporations are made up of people, as such the people acting as a group ( corporation) are entitled to protections just as if they were acting alone as an individual. >>So you’d be ok with someone using AI to generate an image of your self/spouse/child doing something unspeakably awful and putting it up on billboards around town with a suggestion that people take matters into their own hands? Well that escalated quickly, that said in generally... I would probably consider that protected. The last part would be murky as I so recognize the "True Threat" doctrine, of course I am also a self defense absolutist along with a free expression absolutist, so if the hypothetical bill board expressed a true threat I believe it with in my ethical right to defend myself from that true threat.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Citizens united was clearly about expression as the term is commonly understood. Upholding the law would have given the government power to ban books, pamphlets, and most forms of communication commonly understood to be first amendment speech. Per the government's argument, "the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union." It wasn't some crazy hypothetical about violence being an act of personal expression, or something like that. It was about other people can organize to share verbal, written, and recorded political ideas. As with many Supreme Court rulings, the political spin far eclipsed the actual decision and arguments.