Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

The real joke is that "deepfake porn" has been common in Hollywood for generations. It was just consensual. Google around to see how many shots in sex and/or nude scenes were actually body doubles. Only lately has that evolved into digitally putting the star's face on the body double's body.

There are some serious first amendment issues here. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, an iconic case that set the tone for modern supreme court arguments, turned on a verbal 'deepfake', the depiction of a celebrity in a supposed real sexual situation without their consent. That involved a fake interview with Falwell published in Hustler. I don't see how that is legally distinct from putting his face on a body double. Both are claiming an untruth, the creation of a fake sexual history, as a form of legitimate parody and comment on their public persona.

Also, half of all porn films. Does using a Charlie Sheen lookalike in the XXX version of Two and a Half Men constitute deepfake? ("Two and a Half Men", "The Big Bang Theory" ... Chuck Lorre was just begging for porn parodies.)

Download/watch "The People v. Larry Flint". I used to use clips as intros to first amendment and copyright law. It is a great movie.

Come on.

>>Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

That's not a "deepfake". One is a satirical printed ad aimed at a celebrity (satire has been pretty frequently protected speech) and the other is malicious creation of an artifact to attack random people (typically women). You know that there are plenty of unprotected forms of speech (harassment and assault at the top of the list) and it seems like that's what the legislature here is trying to do, add this to that list.

>>Does using a Charlie Sheen lookalike in the XXX version of Two and a Half Men constitute deepfake?

No. That actor isn't credited as "Charlie Sheen", he's credited as . This is not the same thing. He is not representing himself as actually being Charlie Sheen, but possibly the character of "Charlie Sheen".

You're a man of the law: how would you protect these women from revenge porn if this law offends you so? Or are you more of a "sticks and stones and sending my mother an image of what appears to be me getting penetrated in my asshole will never hurt me" type of guy?

The same reason that harassment and slander are crimes. There's always limits to what you can "say" when what you're saying isn't just unpopular but actually damaging.

Not to defend the Virginia statute but as devils advocate, couldn't they argue that their law does not apply to parody and only protects non-public figures?

So couldn't they argue the statute would not apply to the Hustler-Falwell parody for those two reasons?