4 ms·

I'm skimming the comments here and barely anyone is mentioning the increased ease of distribution. It has evolved from upload to a single BBS, to upload to Usen

I'm skimming the comments here and barely anyone is mentioning the increased ease of distribution. It has evolved from upload to a single BBS, to upload to Usenet, to place on your own website, to place on a forum, to distribute like mad with retweets. > The latter almost makes it sound like fake celebrity porn is more of an art form that should be appreciated and guarded from cheap knock offs. Cheap, high-quality forgeries are still forgeries. Yes, forged currency did become an item more mentioned in the news when inkjet printers came into common use. This doesn't mean the old-school forgeries were "works of art worthy of appreciation and protection", or were ignored by the local news media when pertinent to the location they reported on.

_heimdall 3y ago
> I'm skimming the comments here and barely anyone is mentioning the increased ease of distribution. It has evolved from upload to a single BBS, to upload to Usenet, to place on your own website, to place on a forum, to distribute like mad with retweets. This is where I'm stuck, I don't really know where I land on whether its a problem we need solved or just a fact of how some people will use new tech. I wouldn't want someone posting fake nudes (or any photos for that matter) of me online, but I'm not sure if I have a right to stop them. Most aren't free speech absolutists, though I would hope that most would take issue with the idea of further limiting free speech based on new technologies that we don't have direct control over. Are there certain things I can write in a book but not write online? Or things I can write on my own site but not post to Twitter? I had no say in Twitter's creation, how does it have an impact on my personal freedoms? Edit: in addition - if I take issue with the current legal limit for free speech, can I simply develop a new form of distribution and claim that we now need to further limit free speech in response? That feels like a dangerous backdoor to attack constitutional rights without going through the courts or congress.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Speech about people needs to be truthful if possible, and also limited to the domain in which those people are salient. Free speech is bad when it means Joe Blow across the street is wrongfully called a pedophilic arsonist on the front page of the New York Times. And it's still kind of crappy when Bo Jellow's actual theft of $50 in Missouri is shamed in Europe. Twitter has mass play. It's effectively a worldwide public forum. There should be limits to what speech occurs on it, if only to keep the signal-to-noise ratio down so that genuinely important speech is less drowned out. > I wouldn't want someone posting fake nudes (or any photos for that matter) of me online, but I'm not sure if I have a right to stop them. It depends on where you live what the law allows. > though I would hope that most would take issue with the idea of further limiting free speech based on new technologies that we don't have direct control over People have been asking for limits on public posting of even non-fake "revenge" porn for years. Edit: > can I simply develop a new form of distribution and claim that we now need to further limit free speech in response? That feels like a dangerous backdoor to attack constitutional rights without going through the courts or congress. You can claim this while only positing a new form of distribution. Talking about policies and the limits of freedoms is one of the fundamental freedoms necessary to a well functioning democracy or republic. It's no attack, as the speech does not create law, or even policy, only the courts or congress or duly appointed regulators (pre-Chevron overturning[1]) can do that. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    > Twitter has mass play. It's effectively a worldwide public forum. There should be limits to what speech occurs on it, if only to keep the signal-to-noise ratio down so that genuinely important speech is less drowned out. This stipulation would be a problem. For one thing we need to be able to distinguish what is genuinely important speech. For another, we would need some kind of check to prevent someone from tipping the scales by flooding the system with speech that technically meets that bar to tip the scales away from less important speech that would have otherwise been protected. Effectively, this makes free speech a sliding scale based on how much "genuinely important speech" others are sharing.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      No. I'm just saying don't air private grievances on the world stage. Keep it to a local forum if possible. If not possible, then generalize it for the public forum.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  What is the purpose of free speech? It allows for the undisturbed transmission of ideas, criticism of the government, and engagement with politics and political leaders. Widely distributing fake porn using somebody's likeness without their permission is absolutely not providing any sort of social good and is damn far from the key forms of speech that are important for a healthy social system. This isn't a backdoor to attack your constitutional rights. Not even close.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    It also allows the spread of enjoyable pastimes and a whole host of other non-political speech that some may find objectionable. There are a whole host of interesting pre-Code Hollywood films for instance, that aren't pornographic, but still had important or humorous messages.
    - UncleMeat 3y ago
      Sure, we can expand the values of free speech as far as you want. Making and distributing porn of somebody using their likeness without their consent is unethical behavior that is not some pillar of any social good derived from the broad principle of free speech. If you want to fight for free speech there's plenty of other actually useful battles. I'm serious. Just once, I'd love a free speech absolutist in these situations to talk about all the work they are doing to prevent retaliatory arrest or expand the speech rights of students or try to get Thomas (who wants to overturn Tinker) or Alito (who voted by himself in Snyder v Phelps) kicked off the bench.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        >Making and distributing porn of somebody using their likeness without their consent is unethical behavior I suspect not everyone agrees with that. Are you willing to trade away some of the things you think should be permitted but they don't for the ban?
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
- staticautomatic 3y ago
  We already have “false light” laws to address this, and they’re rooted in the common law right of privacy rather than the constitutional right.

_heimdall 3y ago

> I'm skimming the comments here and barely anyone is mentioning the increased ease of distribution. It has evolved from upload to a single BBS, to upload to Usenet, to place on your own website, to place on a forum, to distribute like mad with retweets. This is where I'm stuck, I don't really know where I land on whether its a problem we need solved or just a fact of how some people will use new tech. I wouldn't want someone posting fake nudes (or any photos for that matter) of me online, but I'm not sure if I have a right to stop them. Most aren't free speech absolutists, though I would hope that most would take issue with the idea of further limiting free speech based on new technologies that we don't have direct control over. Are there certain things I can write in a book but not write online? Or things I can write on my own site but not post to Twitter? I had no say in Twitter's creation, how does it have an impact on my personal freedoms? Edit: in addition - if I take issue with the current legal limit for free speech, can I simply develop a new form of distribution and claim that we now need to further limit free speech in response? That feels like a dangerous backdoor to attack constitutional rights without going through the courts or congress.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Speech about people needs to be truthful if possible, and also limited to the domain in which those people are salient. Free speech is bad when it means Joe Blow across the street is wrongfully called a pedophilic arsonist on the front page of the New York Times. And it's still kind of crappy when Bo Jellow's actual theft of $50 in Missouri is shamed in Europe. Twitter has mass play. It's effectively a worldwide public forum. There should be limits to what speech occurs on it, if only to keep the signal-to-noise ratio down so that genuinely important speech is less drowned out. > I wouldn't want someone posting fake nudes (or any photos for that matter) of me online, but I'm not sure if I have a right to stop them. It depends on where you live what the law allows. > though I would hope that most would take issue with the idea of further limiting free speech based on new technologies that we don't have direct control over People have been asking for limits on public posting of even non-fake "revenge" porn for years. Edit: > can I simply develop a new form of distribution and claim that we now need to further limit free speech in response? That feels like a dangerous backdoor to attack constitutional rights without going through the courts or congress. You can claim this while only positing a new form of distribution. Talking about policies and the limits of freedoms is one of the fundamental freedoms necessary to a well functioning democracy or republic. It's no attack, as the speech does not create law, or even policy, only the courts or congress or duly appointed regulators (pre-Chevron overturning[1]) can do that. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
- _heimdall 3y ago
  > Twitter has mass play. It's effectively a worldwide public forum. There should be limits to what speech occurs on it, if only to keep the signal-to-noise ratio down so that genuinely important speech is less drowned out. This stipulation would be a problem. For one thing we need to be able to distinguish what is genuinely important speech. For another, we would need some kind of check to prevent someone from tipping the scales by flooding the system with speech that technically meets that bar to tip the scales away from less important speech that would have otherwise been protected. Effectively, this makes free speech a sliding scale based on how much "genuinely important speech" others are sharing.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    No. I'm just saying don't air private grievances on the world stage. Keep it to a local forum if possible. If not possible, then generalize it for the public forum.
UncleMeat 3y ago
What is the purpose of free speech? It allows for the undisturbed transmission of ideas, criticism of the government, and engagement with politics and political leaders. Widely distributing fake porn using somebody's likeness without their permission is absolutely not providing any sort of social good and is damn far from the key forms of speech that are important for a healthy social system. This isn't a backdoor to attack your constitutional rights. Not even close.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  It also allows the spread of enjoyable pastimes and a whole host of other non-political speech that some may find objectionable. There are a whole host of interesting pre-Code Hollywood films for instance, that aren't pornographic, but still had important or humorous messages.
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    Sure, we can expand the values of free speech as far as you want. Making and distributing porn of somebody using their likeness without their consent is unethical behavior that is not some pillar of any social good derived from the broad principle of free speech. If you want to fight for free speech there's plenty of other actually useful battles. I'm serious. Just once, I'd love a free speech absolutist in these situations to talk about all the work they are doing to prevent retaliatory arrest or expand the speech rights of students or try to get Thomas (who wants to overturn Tinker) or Alito (who voted by himself in Snyder v Phelps) kicked off the bench.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      >Making and distributing porn of somebody using their likeness without their consent is unethical behavior I suspect not everyone agrees with that. Are you willing to trade away some of the things you think should be permitted but they don't for the ban?
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
staticautomatic 3y ago
We already have “false light” laws to address this, and they’re rooted in the common law right of privacy rather than the constitutional right.