Comment on Grok’s ‘spicy’ video setting instantly made me Taylor Swift nude deepfakes

• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  That seems recently signed into law (ie, untested in courts) & patently unconstitutional. Would that law prohibit obscene depictions of Trump?

  source

  • frongt@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

    source

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      For one, he’s a very public figure.

      As is Swift.

      maliciously, with intent to harass him personally

      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.

      source
  • bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

    source

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      but the US first amendment is not absolute

      It’s pretty clear: strict scrutiny.

      Also, the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world.

      Would the jurisdiction for a case between a US citizen & US company not be the US?

      source