4 ms·

In California as of 2019, making fake porn of real people without their written consent is not a crime that will get you thrown in jail, but it is a violation o

In California as of 2019, making fake porn of real people without their written consent is not a crime that will get you thrown in jail, but it is a violation of an individual's rights and you can be sued for damages, up to $150,000 per photo. It even means that Hollywood directors have to get written permission if they depict actors having sex when everyone was just wearing skin-colored underwear and using camera tricks. I think that's actually a good thing. About why this is now an issue if it's existed for decades? When I was a kid, it was easy to find all kinds of illegal stuff on the internet. That doesn't mean it was OK then or now. I don't think fake porn has been that mainstream until recently. There were some high-profile cases that raised the issue in the media. Personally, I believe that it was always a bad thing to photoshop someone's head onto a porn star's body without their consent. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB602 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/if-signed-by-governor-california-bill-54514/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/if-signed-by-governor-cali...

frognumber 3y ago
You're a Nazi. I think most of us will agree that was bad. If I wanted to make it worse, I could have used another n-word. However, neither of those was illegal. If I said that, other than to make a point, I might be socially ostracised, but I wouldn't pay a fine or go to jail. In most of these cases: - I'm very supportive of banning anything with a profit motive (e.g. the Hollywood directors example). I don't think corporations need the same rights as people. - Public disclosure / distribution has a lot more nuance -- in this case, I'm supportive of banning it, but in each case, we need a deeper conversation. - I am strongly opposed to banning anything resembling free speech in the privacy of one's home. If you're making porn of me on your computer, it stays on your computer, and I learn about it, it's not clear the government ought to have a right to help resolve our dispute. If it does, it should definitely be civil (not criminal), with damages set at e.g. $5000 and not $150,000.
- terminous 3y ago
  My mistake in the wording. The California law creates a private right of legal action for intentional distribution, not creation.
  - frognumber 3y ago
    Then it's a surprisingly reasonable law. There's an urge when there's a clear evil happening to solve it by whatever means possible (e.g. address local issues at a federal law, or national/international issues locally). However, the older I'm getting, the more I'm realizing that how a problem is solved is often more important than that it's solved. I've also learned that in policy, overkill usually causes more problems than it solves. We keep seeing that lesson (war on drugs, war on terror, war on [X]), but we never really internalize it. As soon as something really bad happens, it's politically advantageous to be tough, and anyone opposed is labeled something bad (pedophile, terrorist, rapist, abuser, ...). I predict that by far the most common culprit for creation will be an immature, horny, nerdy, teenager. The most appropriate reaction will be within the toolkit of most adult caregivers (parents and schools), without any new laws required.

frognumber 3y ago

You're a Nazi. I think most of us will agree that was bad. If I wanted to make it worse, I could have used another n-word. However, neither of those was illegal. If I said that, other than to make a point, I might be socially ostracised, but I wouldn't pay a fine or go to jail. In most of these cases: - I'm very supportive of banning anything with a profit motive (e.g. the Hollywood directors example). I don't think corporations need the same rights as people. - Public disclosure / distribution has a lot more nuance -- in this case, I'm supportive of banning it, but in each case, we need a deeper conversation. - I am strongly opposed to banning anything resembling free speech in the privacy of one's home. If you're making porn of me on your computer, it stays on your computer, and I learn about it, it's not clear the government ought to have a right to help resolve our dispute. If it does, it should definitely be civil (not criminal), with damages set at e.g. $5000 and not $150,000.

terminous 3y ago
My mistake in the wording. The California law creates a private right of legal action for intentional distribution, not creation.
- frognumber 3y ago
  Then it's a surprisingly reasonable law. There's an urge when there's a clear evil happening to solve it by whatever means possible (e.g. address local issues at a federal law, or national/international issues locally). However, the older I'm getting, the more I'm realizing that how a problem is solved is often more important than that it's solved. I've also learned that in policy, overkill usually causes more problems than it solves. We keep seeing that lesson (war on drugs, war on terror, war on [X]), but we never really internalize it. As soon as something really bad happens, it's politically advantageous to be tough, and anyone opposed is labeled something bad (pedophile, terrorist, rapist, abuser, ...). I predict that by far the most common culprit for creation will be an immature, horny, nerdy, teenager. The most appropriate reaction will be within the toolkit of most adult caregivers (parents and schools), without any new laws required.