3 ms·

Just read the actual law... it says "identifiable individual" in the language -- so men and women (and anyone else!). It also limits the damage-seeking to "inti

Just read the actual law... it says "identifiable individual" in the language -- so men and women (and anyone else!). It also limits the damage-seeking to "intimate" material, but doesn't really explain what intimate means. It also says you can't make the visual depiction, even you put "This is an AI fake" on it. > DIGITAL FORGERY.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:83d22542-02aa-46d7-befe-b26e23ffa1e7 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:83d22542-02aa-46... A law like this would have 100% clashed with the ruling of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988). I don't know who else remembers the 80s... but Tipper Gore and Nancy Reagan were the bad guys. Censorship, no matter who it is supposed to help, will be twisted by those looking to silence their opponents. Dee Snider's speech before Congress is as relevant now as it was then. "There is no authority who has the right, and necessary insight to make these judgements..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Vyr1TylTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Vyr1TylTE

amiga386 2y ago
> doesn't really explain what intimate means It doesn't have to. The act exclusively amends 15 USC 6851, which already defines it in §6851(a)(5): http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6851%20edition:prelim) http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6... (5) Intimate visual depiction The term "intimate visual depiction"- (A) means a visual depiction, as that term is defined in section 2256(5) of title 18, that depicts- (i) the uncovered genitals, pubic area, anus, or post-pubescent female nipple of an identifiable individual; or (ii) the display or transfer of bodily sexual fluids- (I) on to any part of the body of an identifiable individual; (II) from the body of an identifiable individual; or (III) an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct and (B) includes any visual depictions described in subparagraph (A) produced while the identifiable individual was in a public place only if the individual did not- (i) voluntarily display the content depicted; or (ii) consent to the sexual conduct depicted. > A law like this would have 100% clashed with the ruling of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988) It would not. The parody advert at the heart of Hustler vs. Falwell did not include an "intimate visual depiction" of Falwell. It had a stock portrait of him, and lurid satirical text purporting to be his own words: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Falwellhustler.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Falwellhustle...

amiga386 2y ago

> doesn't really explain what intimate means It doesn't have to. The act exclusively amends 15 USC 6851, which already defines it in §6851(a)(5): http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6851%20edition:prelim) http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6... (5) Intimate visual depiction The term "intimate visual depiction"- (A) means a visual depiction, as that term is defined in section 2256(5) of title 18, that depicts- (i) the uncovered genitals, pubic area, anus, or post-pubescent female nipple of an identifiable individual; or (ii) the display or transfer of bodily sexual fluids- (I) on to any part of the body of an identifiable individual; (II) from the body of an identifiable individual; or (III) an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct and (B) includes any visual depictions described in subparagraph (A) produced while the identifiable individual was in a public place only if the individual did not- (i) voluntarily display the content depicted; or (ii) consent to the sexual conduct depicted. > A law like this would have 100% clashed with the ruling of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988) It would not. The parody advert at the heart of Hustler vs. Falwell did not include an "intimate visual depiction" of Falwell. It had a stock portrait of him, and lurid satirical text purporting to be his own words: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Falwellhustler.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Falwellhustle...