Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 98 posts

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#11

Post by adamlett »

sandworm101 wrote: post #2

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 su…

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

What I understood from recently rewatching The People vs Larry Flynt was that LF and Hustler magazine were acquitted because nobody would reasonably believe that Jerry Falwell had actually had sex with his mother. It seems evident that the material difference between that case and today’s deepfake is how likely anyone would be to mistake it for the truth.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#13

Post by heyitsguay »

TomMckenny wrote: post #10
sandworm101 wrote: post #2

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 su…

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?

Why wouldn't you defend this statute?

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#14

Post by heyitsguay »

commandlinefan wrote: post #12
heyitsguay wrote: post #7

Very disappointed but very unsurprised to see that the initial HN reaction is "this shouldn't be illegal". Where is your respect for others?

Where is your respect for justice?

With the lawmakers making this law who are trying to protect people from injustice.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#15

Post by TomMckenny »

heyitsguay wrote: post #13
TomMckenny wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why wouldn't you defend this statute?

I haven't read enough about it to have an opinion yet.

Does the wording in fact contradict Hustler Magazine v. Falwell? Would it outlaw satyrical images of politicians? Thus my question above.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#16

Post by moate »

tptacek wrote: post #9
moate wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 try…

Moreover, the entire point of Hustler v Falwell was that no reasonable person could have believed the Hustler piece was anything but satire, while the whole point of a "deep fake" is that the opposite is meant to be true. It's very strange to argue that deepfake revenge porn is in any way comparable to Hustler v Falwell; it seems like you'd have to be almost totally unfamiliar with that case – or with deepfakes, or w…

Or arguing in bad faith because you just think people should always be able to "say" whatever they want whenever they want because slippery slope >> thought police >> being an asshole sends you to jail.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#17

Post by tptacek »

adamlett wrote: post #11
sandworm101 wrote: post #2

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 su…

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 What I understood from recently rewatching The People vs Larry Flynt was that LF and Hustler magazine were acquitted because nobody would reasonably believe that Jerry Falwell had actually had sex with his mother. It seems evident that the material difference between that c…

Yes; this is basic enough to be in the syllabus for the case:

Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, [[[ and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. ]]] "Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here.

Em. mine.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#18

Post by TallGuyShort »

heyitsguay wrote: post #7

Very disappointed but very unsurprised to see that the initial HN reaction is "this shouldn't be illegal". Where is your respect for others?

Any new law has the potential to result in no-knock SWAT team raids and online censorship with minimal judicial oversight when someone violates a technicality in the law and pisses off the wrong person. And despite that many times said laws don't even result in a decrease in the undesirable behavior after all that. It's always worth looking at the potential abuses of a law (especially one that that effectively makes an exception to the 1st Amendment) even though the thing it claims to address is reprehensible.

Yes, I think deepfake revenge porn is terrible, and people who make it are douchebags. But - we've all seen our politicians support some truly stupid stuff and make some truly ignorant statements. Do we suddenly just assume that these same people managed to write this law with everything well-defined, and with appropriate checks and balances in place, without external critical thinking applied?

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#19

Post by 0815test »

adamlett wrote: post #11
sandworm101 wrote: post #2

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 su…

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 What I understood from recently rewatching The People vs Larry Flynt was that LF and Hustler magazine were acquitted because nobody would reasonably believe that Jerry Falwell had actually had sex with his mother. It seems evident that the material difference between that c…

One could definitely use "deepfake" tech to make transparently-untrue and highly fanciful depictions/parodies though. It's not so much about the technology itself as how it gets used.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#20

Post by heyitsguay »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #18
heyitsguay wrote: post #7

Very disappointed but very unsurprised to see that the initial HN reaction is "this shouldn't be illegal". Where is your respect for others?

Any new law has the potential to result in no-knock SWAT team raids and online censorship with minimal judicial oversight when someone violates a technicality in the law and pisses off the wrong person. And despite that many times said laws don't even result in a decrease in the undesirable behavior after all that. It's always worth looking at the potential abuses of a law (especially one that that effectively makes…

Nothing you say here is special to this law though, as opposed to any other law that gets passed. If you're of the opinion that no law is a good law, i think we'll have to just disagree. All I'm seeing is justification for inaction on an issue with pretty clear precedents in established law on revenge porn and libel/slander.
Post reply on HN