Shouldn't this already be covered by defamation and/or laws related to truth in marketing?
Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
21–30 of 98 posts
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sho…
Exactly. So a deepfake of a clean-cut star, say Taylor Swift, in an over-the-top hardcore porn clip would not reasonably be considered real and so could be a legitimate parody.
I forgot to mention perhaps the greatest political porn title: "Who's Nailin Palin?" ... the perfect recent embodiment of the Falwell holding.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#23Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No I'm saying no law is above critical thinking. There should always be a devil's advocate because you should never be so convinced you're not the devil. But especially because I do think the legislative and judicial branches in the United States have effectively abdicated their responsibilities, and now we have executive branches that are given massive amounts of power, sheltered from the consequences of misconduct and given freedom from the responsibility to actually protect. So in practice yes I am suspicious that any law, badly implemented, is nothing but a tool for the powerful to wield more power with more supposed moral authority.
edit: As a specific example, the only other non-dead comments I saw minutes after you posted this dealt with how this is different from existing parodies and the use of body-doubles in film. Is there a process formalizing consent from actors and actresses in such cases? There probably should be in the case of body double. But it would be an unreasonable expectation in the case of parody. But these are all questions that need to get answered before. Asking those questions and observing that they appear to not have been dealt with doesn't mean you think deepfake revenge porn is A-OK.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#25I don't see how this can possible be legal vs the First Amendment.
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.
The deepfakes aspect of this law could be considered akin to slander (an untrue statement that damages someone's reputation). Deepfakes are basically fake/fraudulent videos that can be analogized to "untrue speech". If I were trying to defend this law against a First Amendment challenge, I would use this approach. I would also expect that once deepfakes are sufficiently common, people will defend them on the basis that "it's just for fun — everyone knows they're fake." That would be akin to the defense against false advertising for subjective statements like "Tastiest Pizza In Amador County!".
I would note that the deepfakes law is unlike harassment crimes, which are not illegal because of what you're saying, but rather the person to whom you're saying them.
Even if you are found guilty of harassing someone verbally, you would be free to make the same statements about that person to someone else (assuming they don't also constitute slander, by virtue of being untrue). Basically, there are very few limits on what you can truthfully say about someone; harassment law only applies when you're saying such things to an unwilling listener.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#26Very disappointed but very unsurprised to see that the initial HN reaction is "this shouldn't be illegal". Where is your respect for others?
I think your "BUT" should be "AND".
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sho…
Thank you for posting that. I’m not sure I ever fully grok’d the “outrageousness” standard.
So if you say something horrible about a public figure, knowing that it is false, and presenting it as true, if it’s outrageous enough to be obvious parody then it’s permitted. But if it’s stated as truth and emphatically presented as truthful and not as parody, then the public figure exception is lost?
Very hard not to wade into the quagmire of horrible statements people make about a certain politician which a large portion of the country accept as truly factual in this context...
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#28Very disappointed but very unsurprised to see that the initial HN reaction is "this shouldn't be illegal". Where is your respect for others?
The answer to disrespect isn't "make it a crime." A crime is a serious matter. Few things should be crimes.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#29Earlier 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…
Maybe in the venn diagram of deep fakes and revenge porn, these are not two perfectly overlapping sets, and since first amendment issues have to pass strict scrutiny, the law could still be in Constitutional jeopardy?
I Am Definitely Not A Constitutional Lawyer.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#30I don't see how this can possible be legal vs the First Amendment.
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.
Or satire if you put a disclaimer that it's not the person depicted. Would you want a cartoonist arrested for the involuntary porn of painting trump naked with a micro penis?