Here are two paragraphs that rang my alarm bells: > The bill proposes a variety of exclusions for news, satire, biopics, criticism, etc. to limit the impact on

Here are two paragraphs that rang my alarm bells: > The bill proposes a variety of exclusions for news, satire, biopics, criticism, etc. to limit the impact on free expression, but their application is uncertain at best. For example, there’s an exemption for use of a replica for a “bona fide” news broadcast, provided that the replica is “materially relevant” to the subject of the broadcast. Will citizen journalism qualify as “bona fide”? And who decides whether the replica is “materially relevant”? ... > What is worse, NO FAKES offers even fewer safeguards for lawful speech than the DMCA. For example, the DMCA includes a relatively simple counter-notice process that a speaker can use to get their work restored. NO FAKES does not. Instead, NO FAKES puts the burden on the speaker to run to court within 14 days to defend their rights. The powerful have lawyers on retainer who can do that, but most creators, activists, and citizen journalists do not. I've written a bit before [1] about the disproportionately large risk of filing a counter notice in response to a DMCA claim. At the very least the NO FAKES act shouldn't impose a greater burden on the speaker than the DMCA does. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622375