Comment on Grok’s ‘spicy’ video setting instantly made me Taylor Swift nude deepfakes
bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 23 hours agoMany jurisdictions have started banning nonconsensual intimate imagery, including the US (in several states as well as federally under the TAKE IT DOWN Act).
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 23 hours ago
That seems recently signed into law (ie, untested in courts) & patently unconstitutional. Would that law prohibit obscene depictions of Trump?
frongt@lemmy.zip 17 hours ago
Maybe. For photographs, it’s definitely not unconstitutional to make it illegal, because people have a right to privacy (4th amendment sort of, and 10th because they’re state laws).
For Trump, and for non-photographic media, it’s a little different. For one, he’s a very public figure. Another, you could argue it’s artistic, satirical, or critical of him.
Now if you were doing it maliciously, with intent to harass him personally, then yeah that would probably be considered not protected and carry civil or criminal liability.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 16 hours ago
As is Swift.
Is that the standard? Wouldn’t an act of harassment (as legally defined) rather than only intent of it be a required element?
The argument seems weak for a fake image of a public figure.
bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
Well, the constitutionality will need to be tested, sure, but the US first amendment is not absolute, even if it is sweeping relative to other countries.
Also, the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world. Plenty of other countries have put similar laws on the books over the last 2-3 years.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 23 hours ago
It’s pretty clear: strict scrutiny.
Would the jurisdiction for a case between a US citizen & US company not be the US?