5 ms·

I doubt this can pass first amendment scrutiny as it's not sharing actual photos of the victim. Should it be illegal? Maybe.

NoTeslaThrow 1y ago
Really? I am not a lawyer, but from what I recall this would fall squarely under defamatory speech.
warkdarrior 1y ago
It should be illegal as long as the AI-generated images are tied to the victim. If it's presented as fake/fictional, it's probably fine. If it's presented as photos of person X, even if they are not real photos, it's likely illegal.
dylan604 1y ago
This is not a free speech issue. There are limitations to free speech. While the framers would have never conceived of this kind of issue, this definitely falls within the okay to make illegal in my books.
- staticautomatic 1y ago
  In what way is a limitation on free speech not a free speech issue?
  - windowshopping 1y ago
    So you feel it should be legal to call in bomb threats to schools? It's free speech after all.
  - NoTeslaThrow 1y ago
    Even a cursory glance at the legal code should convince you that "free speech" is a convenient fantasy mostly used to hoodwink liberals into supporting the KKK. Why not call it a "speech" issue?
  - dylan604 1y ago
    In what way is this a limitation of free speech not granted within the precedence of free speech rulings? Or better yet, why do you think this is protected under free speech.
    - naasking 1y ago
      This question seems backwards. Any expression is free speech by default unless explicitly ruled otherwise. The burden is on people wanting this ruled out to argue it isn't free speech.
jandrewrogers 1y ago
I think there is a close analogy to criminal libel here, which has generally been found to be Constitutional in cases of intentional misrepresentation. It would be difficult to argue that this particular case is anything but intentional misrepresentation of the victim.
more_corn 1y ago
Non-consensual sexualization is not protected speech.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  sure it is
ethan_smith 1y ago
Courts have generally found that non-consensual intimate imagery isn't fully protected speech when it causes identifiable harm, similar to defamation or true threats - several similar state laws have already survived initial constitutional challenges.
dragonwriter 1y ago
It's a fairly common element of revenge porn laws in the states, and I think it is likely to survive review because it does not criminalize the content as content, but the dissemination of it with the intent and effect of causing harm. The Oregon law being amended to add coverage of digital fakes criminalizes nonconsensual dissemination of images covered where both the intent exists that the subject of the images be "harassed, humiliated or injures" and a reasonable person would, in fact, be "harassed, humiliated or injured" by the dissemination of the images. And fake images are probably less protected than real images here, where, again, the prohibition is not on the content, but its use as a tool to cause intentional harm.

NoTeslaThrow 1y ago

Really? I am not a lawyer, but from what I recall this would fall squarely under defamatory speech.

warkdarrior 1y ago

It should be illegal as long as the AI-generated images are tied to the victim. If it's presented as fake/fictional, it's probably fine. If it's presented as photos of person X, even if they are not real photos, it's likely illegal.

dylan604 1y ago

This is not a free speech issue. There are limitations to free speech. While the framers would have never conceived of this kind of issue, this definitely falls within the okay to make illegal in my books.

staticautomatic 1y ago
In what way is a limitation on free speech not a free speech issue?
- windowshopping 1y ago
  So you feel it should be legal to call in bomb threats to schools? It's free speech after all.
- NoTeslaThrow 1y ago
  Even a cursory glance at the legal code should convince you that "free speech" is a convenient fantasy mostly used to hoodwink liberals into supporting the KKK. Why not call it a "speech" issue?
- dylan604 1y ago
  In what way is this a limitation of free speech not granted within the precedence of free speech rulings? Or better yet, why do you think this is protected under free speech.
  - naasking 1y ago
    This question seems backwards. Any expression is free speech by default unless explicitly ruled otherwise. The burden is on people wanting this ruled out to argue it isn't free speech.

jandrewrogers 1y ago

I think there is a close analogy to criminal libel here, which has generally been found to be Constitutional in cases of intentional misrepresentation. It would be difficult to argue that this particular case is anything but intentional misrepresentation of the victim.

more_corn 1y ago

Non-consensual sexualization is not protected speech.

s1artibartfast 1y ago
sure it is

ethan_smith 1y ago

Courts have generally found that non-consensual intimate imagery isn't fully protected speech when it causes identifiable harm, similar to defamation or true threats - several similar state laws have already survived initial constitutional challenges.

dragonwriter 1y ago

It's a fairly common element of revenge porn laws in the states, and I think it is likely to survive review because it does not criminalize the content as content, but the dissemination of it with the intent and effect of causing harm. The Oregon law being amended to add coverage of digital fakes criminalizes nonconsensual dissemination of images covered where both the intent exists that the subject of the images be "harassed, humiliated or injures" and a reasonable person would, in fact, be "harassed, humiliated or injured" by the dissemination of the images. And fake images are probably less protected than real images here, where, again, the prohibition is not on the content, but its use as a tool to cause intentional harm.