4 ms·

> Yes, it would be an infringement on free speech Freedom of speech is mainly so that we can criticize the government. How does deepfake porn or impersonation

> Yes, it would be an infringement on free speech Freedom of speech is mainly so that we can criticize the government. How does deepfake porn or impersonation have anything to do with speech?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Freedom of speech is mainly so that we can criticize the government Freedom of speech is a bigger concept than the First Amendment. Technically curtailing one's ability to make AI porn of your colleagues is a restriction on speech. That said, so is every spam filter, fraud statute and retaliation against a declaration of war. A right doesn't have to be absolute to be good (or vice versa).
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  All speech is information but not all information is speech
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > information != speech Information intentionally communicated by a person to another is speech by the strictest classical definition. (I guess technically the creation of the AI porn isn't speech in the way a falling tree in a deserted forest doesn't make a perceived sound. But it's a schoolyard riddle for a reason.)
- gpm 2y ago
  > spam filter Your other examples, yes. This one, not at all. Freedom of speech is against government intervention, not against private agreements. Rather in fact an absolute form of freedom of speech would protect against the government from stopping you from forwarding all your correspondence to someone else, and would protect against the government stopping that someone else from removing the spam and sending the rest back to you. Non-government run spam filters aren't just not offending freedom of speech, they are protected by it.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Freedom of speech is against government intervention, not against private agreements You're conflating the First Amendment and freedom of speech [1]. If you're in my house and I prohibit you from expressing certain views, that is fine by the First Amendment but not in the spirit of free speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
    - gpm 2y ago
      No I'm not. You're conflating freedom of speech with a duty to listen. Freedom of speech entails a freedom to send spam. It doesn't entail a duty to receive spam, to read spam, to not have someone else filter your communications for spam, etc. And as I argued above, since every step in having someone filter your communications for spam is simply speech, it protects spam filters.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > No I'm not You restricted it to "government intervention, not...private agreements." The freedom of speech extends to the private sphere. > You're conflating freedom of speech with a duty to listen These are inextricably linked in the classical form. In the Athenian tradition, there was a duty to listen [1]. (Though even then practicality made it far from absolute.) That traces through to the Protestation of 1621 [2] and the Founders' debates around the First Amendment (namely, between Madison and Hamilton). Practically, of course, no duty is absolute. But a society where everyone screams into a void isn't adhering to the principles of free speech and expression. (I'll note that alongside the duty to listen is an implied duty on the part of the speaker to speak truly [3]. Spam is the epitome of the cessation of the latter revoking the former.) [1] https://www.stoa.org/demos/article_democracy_overview@page=all&greekEncoding=UnicodeC.html https://www.stoa.org/demos/article_democracy_overview@page=a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestation_of_1621 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestation_of_1621 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesia
        2y ago
delichon 2y ago
I think freedom of speech is mainly about freedom of thought and just plain freedom, and the ability to criticize the government is a side benefit. And that it should also include the freedom to augment our imaginations with the prosthetics of our choice.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Cannot wait to augment the imaginations of his coworkers with a realistic video of this guy fucking a goat.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  But people have always been free to talk about the weather, the killer feature is being able to talk about your leaders.
ssalka 2y ago
Freedom of speech is there to protect objectionable/offensive speech, whether it is directed towards the government or otherwise. Objectionable speech is frequently in the crosshairs of pro-censorship folks, and many people think of deepfakes as objectionable – reasonably so.

> Yes, it would be an infringement on free speech Freedom of speech is mainly so that we can criticize the government. How does deepfake porn or impersonation have anything to do with speech?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Freedom of speech is mainly so that we can criticize the government Freedom of speech is a bigger concept than the First Amendment. Technically curtailing one's ability to make AI porn of your colleagues is a restriction on speech. That said, so is every spam filter, fraud statute and retaliation against a declaration of war. A right doesn't have to be absolute to be good (or vice versa).

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
All speech is information but not all information is speech
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > information != speech Information intentionally communicated by a person to another is speech by the strictest classical definition. (I guess technically the creation of the AI porn isn't speech in the way a falling tree in a deserted forest doesn't make a perceived sound. But it's a schoolyard riddle for a reason.)
gpm 2y ago
> spam filter Your other examples, yes. This one, not at all. Freedom of speech is against government intervention, not against private agreements. Rather in fact an absolute form of freedom of speech would protect against the government from stopping you from forwarding all your correspondence to someone else, and would protect against the government stopping that someone else from removing the spam and sending the rest back to you. Non-government run spam filters aren't just not offending freedom of speech, they are protected by it.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Freedom of speech is against government intervention, not against private agreements You're conflating the First Amendment and freedom of speech [1]. If you're in my house and I prohibit you from expressing certain views, that is fine by the First Amendment but not in the spirit of free speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
  - gpm 2y ago
    No I'm not. You're conflating freedom of speech with a duty to listen. Freedom of speech entails a freedom to send spam. It doesn't entail a duty to receive spam, to read spam, to not have someone else filter your communications for spam, etc. And as I argued above, since every step in having someone filter your communications for spam is simply speech, it protects spam filters.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > No I'm not You restricted it to "government intervention, not...private agreements." The freedom of speech extends to the private sphere. > You're conflating freedom of speech with a duty to listen These are inextricably linked in the classical form. In the Athenian tradition, there was a duty to listen [1]. (Though even then practicality made it far from absolute.) That traces through to the Protestation of 1621 [2] and the Founders' debates around the First Amendment (namely, between Madison and Hamilton). Practically, of course, no duty is absolute. But a society where everyone screams into a void isn't adhering to the principles of free speech and expression. (I'll note that alongside the duty to listen is an implied duty on the part of the speaker to speak truly [3]. Spam is the epitome of the cessation of the latter revoking the former.) [1] https://www.stoa.org/demos/article_democracy_overview@page=all&greekEncoding=UnicodeC.html https://www.stoa.org/demos/article_democracy_overview@page=a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestation_of_1621 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestation_of_1621 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesia
      - 2y ago

delichon 2y ago

I think freedom of speech is mainly about freedom of thought and just plain freedom, and the ability to criticize the government is a side benefit. And that it should also include the freedom to augment our imaginations with the prosthetics of our choice.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
Cannot wait to augment the imaginations of his coworkers with a realistic video of this guy fucking a goat.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
But people have always been free to talk about the weather, the killer feature is being able to talk about your leaders.

ssalka 2y ago

Freedom of speech is there to protect objectionable/offensive speech, whether it is directed towards the government or otherwise. Objectionable speech is frequently in the crosshairs of pro-censorship folks, and many people think of deepfakes as objectionable – reasonably so.