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

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#61

Post by sandworm101 »

adamlett wrote: post #37
sandworm101 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. So it could be argued. But color me skeptical as to whether such an argument would convince any judge. For one, sex tapes of so called clean cut stars have emerged before. For another, most reasonable people would agree that there is a significant diff…

>> Nobody who knew Sarah Pailin would mistake an actress for her.

"During a segment on whether Palin will run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, [Fox News] aired a photo of Fey posing as the former Alaska governor."

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fox-news-mistakenl...

So ya, people who did know her image very well did in fact mistake an image of the actor Tina Fey for the real Sarah Palin. It happened several times during the campaign.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#62

Post by pbhjpbhj »

gnicholas wrote: post #25
moate wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> "[...] — everyone knows they're fake." //

One problem we're going to face is that the defence that "it wasn't me it's obviously fake" will apply to all forms of media too. I never said "grab them by the pussy" it was fake, I never raped that person on CCTV it was fake, and the existence of deepfake tech provides reasonable doubt in many cases in which previously the doubt was limited and a sound conviction could be found.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#63

Post by [deleted] »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #52
LAMike wrote: post #48

For everyone saying this is a violation of the 1st amendment - The 1st only extends to what you can say on your personal property . There is a reason you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it's because you are infringing on the property rights of the people who bought a ticket to the movie, and the landloard who is expected to keep everyone safe. You don't have any property rights to any other human other than y…

You are legally allowed to yell "FIRE" in a movie theater. The idea you're not is a myth from a early 1900s supreme court ruling. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

[deleted]

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#64

Post by pvg »

sandworm101 wrote: post #61
adamlett wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. So it could be argued. But color me skeptical as to whether such an argument would convince any judge. For one, sex tapes of so called clean cut stars have emerged before. For another, most reasonable people would agree that there is a significant diff…

>> Nobody who knew Sarah Pailin would mistake an actress for her. "During a segment on whether Palin will run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, [Fox News] aired a photo of Fey posing as the former Alaska governor." https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fox-news-mistakenl... So ya, people who did know her image very well did in fact mistake an image of the actor Tina Fey for the real Sarah Palin. It…

No, they were just sloppy. Wrong graphics were common enough that Fox management had to write grumpy memos about it. You're basing your argument on a hook sentence from a tabloid. Nobody thought they made the mistake because they couldn't tell them apart.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#65

Post by justforyou »

EliRivers wrote: post #54
solotronics wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. If I want to draw a picture of you doing something nasty and post it to my own website why should the state stop me?

From an outsider's perspective, simply riffing out loud, you're free to say (and draw) whatever you like. That's not inherently forbidden, but one is NOT free to deliberately cause distress or harm; you don't get a free ride just because your weapon of choice is words (or pictures). I'm free to hold a hammer in my hand; I have freedom-of-hammer-holding. I'm not free to threaten someone with it; my freedom-of-hammer-h…

Not sure why you're being downvoted, but:

This feels like slippery slope territory to me, especially in the current age of faux outrage. Look at what's happened to the political cartoon sans legal prohibition.

Alsp the hammer example is a lot easier to justify because hammers aren't speech, and physical injury is objectively verifiable.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#66

Post by justforyou »

zaroth wrote: post #27
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Relevant trivia: Penn and Tellers showtime show "Bullshit" purposefully used vulgar hyperbole as a shield against litigation - even though they explored/debunked serious topics.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#67

Post by justforyou »

adamlett wrote: post #37
sandworm101 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. So it could be argued. But color me skeptical as to whether such an argument would convince any judge. For one, sex tapes of so called clean cut stars have emerged before. For another, most reasonable people would agree that there is a significant diff…

>> 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.

Something tells me we're all going to learn a lot more about the above when somebody deepfakes a presidential incest video.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#69

Post by randallsquared »

TomMckenny wrote: post #53
donatj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. Nothing about what you said is correct. The FIRE in a crowded theater argument has nothing to do with property rights. It's about creating dangerous situations. Deep fakes aren't infringing anyone else's property rights, other than maybe very tenuously arguably considering likeness "intellectual property". In the United States however you have no expectation of privacy in public…

>I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law Actually I wonder where this family ideas come from. There must be some engine promulgating the bizarre notion that the only real rights are property rights and all others must derive from them or be dismissed.

That engine is consistency. It just doesn't apply to actually existing law.

Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia

#70

Post by ThrustVectoring »

pretendscholar wrote: post #23
moate wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

slander is not a crime

It's a civil tort, and you have (limited) first amendment protections against having your first amendment rights limited by government intervention via civil court. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
Post reply on HN