Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/deepfake-revenge-porn-distribution-now-a-crime-in-virginia/
8 comments
Fine print.
>> where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
First amendment gives authorization. Had they meant the more colloquial "without permission of the subject" they would have said so. They are allowing authorization from a variety of sources, the constitution included. So #2 is fine as basically anything to do with the president, in his role as president, is fair game.
And they said you have to know or reasonably know that you do not have permission. So the inner thoughts of the artist is an issue and it is very hard to prove knowledge of a negative fact. If you think you have permission somehow, then maybe you do. So if the kid thinks the constitution protects his work, maybe that's enough to avoid the law even where the constitution does not.
It's a badly written law. I suspect written by people who know it is doomed to fail.
>> where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
First amendment gives authorization. Had they meant the more colloquial "without permission of the subject" they would have said so. They are allowing authorization from a variety of sources, the constitution included. So #2 is fine as basically anything to do with the president, in his role as president, is fair game.
And they said you have to know or reasonably know that you do not have permission. So the inner thoughts of the artist is an issue and it is very hard to prove knowledge of a negative fact. If you think you have permission somehow, then maybe you do. So if the kid thinks the constitution protects his work, maybe that's enough to avoid the law even where the constitution does not.
It's a badly written law. I suspect written by people who know it is doomed to fail.
> ...with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates...
This part matters
This part matters
1: legal
2: legal
3: legal, unless there's intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate which would tip it into being illegal.
2: legal
3: legal, unless there's intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate which would tip it into being illegal.
> A kid
I think we can probably agree kids would be wise to avoid doing the specific things you mentioned.
But importantly, when a kid breaks a law there is typically a separate system for juveniles...
I think we can probably agree kids would be wise to avoid doing the specific things you mentioned.
But importantly, when a kid breaks a law there is typically a separate system for juveniles...
There's a separate system for how it's responded to, but the same laws apply, and the same act remains illegal
> A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram.
Probably legal. It is satire meant to be political commentary. Not distributed with the intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate"
As for the other ones idk, probably illegal. The last one almost certainly is, and honestly it probably should be.
Probably legal. It is satire meant to be political commentary. Not distributed with the intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate"
As for the other ones idk, probably illegal. The last one almost certainly is, and honestly it probably should be.
[deleted]
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?
IANAL, but at least for images that are designed to appear to be, or likely to be perceived as, a real photograph, it strikes me as comparable to libel or slander. To me, the distinction is whether a viewer is likely to interpret the image as satire or general humor, or if they are likely to believe that it is genuine photographic evidence of a compromising event. Satire and humor are protected
You drawing a picture is unlikely to pass that muster. Deepfakes, on the other hand, are generally designed to be falsified images.
I think the interpretation of this will lean heavily on being able to prove intent.
You drawing a picture is unlikely to pass that muster. Deepfakes, on the other hand, are generally designed to be falsified images.
I think the interpretation of this will lean heavily on being able to prove intent.
As long as it includes a disclaimer that it is a fake (even though it appears to be a real photograph), I do not complain about it, because I like freedom of speech.
Disclaimers are useless because people strip them when they repost the image
Make stripping disclaimers illegal?
Like stripping copyright claims. Removing the disclaimers is in most cases breaking copyright anyway. It does not count as a remix. It does not count as a quotation and definitely not as archival.
That bit is easy to detect most of the time...
That bit is easy to detect most of the time...
Yeah, and all we have to do to stop piracy is make it illegal. Right?
> I thought we had freedom of speech in the US.
Freedom of speech is not absolute in the U.S., and never has been. There’s a fairly long list of boundary lines that are not protected and can get you in trouble if you cross them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
> 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?
Maybe the same reason the state stops you from hitting or shooting people? Turn that around - why shouldn’t someone stop you from doing something mean, degrading or damaging to someone else publicly?
We could discuss reasons why or why not, but that would also be beside the point. The current law defines illegal speech to include a whole bunch of things your nasty picture might constitute: the harm principle, the offense principle, libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, incitement, fighting words, right to privacy, and public security, just to name a few.
Freedom of speech is not absolute in the U.S., and never has been. There’s a fairly long list of boundary lines that are not protected and can get you in trouble if you cross them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
> 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?
Maybe the same reason the state stops you from hitting or shooting people? Turn that around - why shouldn’t someone stop you from doing something mean, degrading or damaging to someone else publicly?
We could discuss reasons why or why not, but that would also be beside the point. The current law defines illegal speech to include a whole bunch of things your nasty picture might constitute: the harm principle, the offense principle, libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, incitement, fighting words, right to privacy, and public security, just to name a few.
> I thought we had freedom of speech in the US.
Because thanks to some puritanical supreme court rulings over the past century or so, freedom of speech doesn't cover things considered 'obscene'. This has been variously interpreted to include pornography, information on birth control and abortion, and a variety of other things.
Because thanks to some puritanical supreme court rulings over the past century or so, freedom of speech doesn't cover things considered 'obscene'. This has been variously interpreted to include pornography, information on birth control and abortion, and a variety of other things.
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-holding does not give me a free ride if that hammer becomes my weapon of choice.
The problem isn't with the hammer, or me holding it; it's with me deliberately causing distress and harm. The problem isn't me saying something; the problem is with me deliberately causing distress and harm.
Why should someone get a waiver when deliberately hurting people for their own pleasure, simply because the weapon of choice is words or pictures?
A hand-drawn picture posted on your website would probably be more akin to self-harm in this particular example; I'm just riffing out loud on the idea that it's okay to hurt people for your own pleasure so long as the weapon 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-holding does not give me a free ride if that hammer becomes my weapon of choice.
The problem isn't with the hammer, or me holding it; it's with me deliberately causing distress and harm. The problem isn't me saying something; the problem is with me deliberately causing distress and harm.
Why should someone get a waiver when deliberately hurting people for their own pleasure, simply because the weapon of choice is words or pictures?
A hand-drawn picture posted on your website would probably be more akin to self-harm in this particular example; I'm just riffing out loud on the idea that it's okay to hurt people for your own pleasure so long as the weapon is words (or pictures).
Harrassment is a crime in most places.
It doesnt really fall under free speech.
It doesnt really fall under free speech.
But your post makes me feel genearlly harassed, how can I know when I am just uncomfortable or annoyed?
Well, US law is how you know.
Harassment is not a new thing. It is covered in multiple different situations.
Courts and juries and judges handle this stuff all the time.
Harassment is not a new thing. It is covered in multiple different situations.
Courts and juries and judges handle this stuff all the time.
Um... harassment maybe? Why not also go to his place of employment, talk to all his coworkers and distribute the information manually to anybody you see, should that be legal?
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 your own body by default.
That being said, the future will be filled with AR glasses with the nude version on default and that's going to be very weird.
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 your own body by default.
That being said, the future will be filled with AR glasses with the nude version on default and that's going to be very weird.
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...
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
Not quite correct. You are not allowed to yell fire in a movie theater if there is no fire and the yell is likely to cause imminent harm. It's a "myth" only in the sense that this simple rule (can't use speech to cause physical harm) is use in an attempt to justify things that are not imminent. For example, in the infamous Supreme Court ruling, it was used to justify banning Jehovah's Witnesses from distributing pamphlets encouraging people to lobby the government against the draft. That was an incorrect and stupid use of "shouting fire" because the speech does not cause imminent harm, nor does it cause physical harm except through legally changing public opinion.
So it's a "myth" only in the sense that it is a sure marker of a dishonest argument: if someone uses it in speech, they are almost certainly using it to try to justify something which is not the same thing at all.
So it's a "myth" only in the sense that it is a sure marker of a dishonest argument: if someone uses it in speech, they are almost certainly using it to try to justify something which is not the same thing at all.
[deleted]
Especially if there is a fire, what're you supposed to yell?
Endless war is a mistake. Which is what people were arrested for in that case.
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, so a photograph taken of you in public is fair game. See: Paparazzi
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, so a photograph taken of you in public is fair game. See: Paparazzi
>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.
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.
So they will return North America to the Indians?
And antebellum mansions to the descendants of the slaves who built them?
Perhaps it is merely a _claim_ of consistency just convoluted enough that those who are advantaged by the ideology can jump on board.
And antebellum mansions to the descendants of the slaves who built them?
Perhaps it is merely a _claim_ of consistency just convoluted enough that those who are advantaged by the ideology can jump on board.
That engine is libertarianism, which is basically just objectivism that isn't firing on all cylinders.
This post is not an endorsement of objectivism by the way, both are ludicrous.
Taleb nailed this: there is no single perfect scale-independent political philosophy.
A quick pass at what I prefer at various scales: Family: Something a lot like Communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Neighborhood: Libertarianism (mutal respect for property boundaries and common spaces). City/Town: Democracy. State: Republic. Federal: Federal Republic.
Obviously these are just my preferences, although I think the family level one is virtually universal among people who want their families to succeed. The point isn't that I'm right or wrong about any level, it's that different systems are optimal for different scales.
This post is not an endorsement of objectivism by the way, both are ludicrous.
Taleb nailed this: there is no single perfect scale-independent political philosophy.
A quick pass at what I prefer at various scales: Family: Something a lot like Communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Neighborhood: Libertarianism (mutal respect for property boundaries and common spaces). City/Town: Democracy. State: Republic. Federal: Federal Republic.
Obviously these are just my preferences, although I think the family level one is virtually universal among people who want their families to succeed. The point isn't that I'm right or wrong about any level, it's that different systems are optimal for different scales.
It's interesting that the first two seem to be more or less universally implemented through out the world. Although the neighbor level seems to be "leave each other alone including territoriality but aid in the event of emergency".
It's interesting that many of the most notorious times are when that neighborhood level breaks down: Moments of extremely intrusive totalitarianism such as the European witch trials, China's cultural revolution, cults.
It's also interesting that people seem to naturally form similar organization up to the neighbor sized groups but above that anything can happen. I'm guessing this is the result of evolving in essentially neighborhood sized groups. I suspect there is something useful to be found in this stuff.
It's interesting that many of the most notorious times are when that neighborhood level breaks down: Moments of extremely intrusive totalitarianism such as the European witch trials, China's cultural revolution, cults.
It's also interesting that people seem to naturally form similar organization up to the neighbor sized groups but above that anything can happen. I'm guessing this is the result of evolving in essentially neighborhood sized groups. I suspect there is something useful to be found in this stuff.
Your comment is almost entirely wrong.
"Fire in a crowded theater" is trope which means the First Amendment does not protect speech that is very likely going to cause imminent harm. It has nothing whatsoever to do with property rights. It is a "trope" because in rhetoric, it almost always used incorrectly to justify First Amendment exceptions which have nothing to do with imminent harm.
Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever.
"Fire in a crowded theater" is trope which means the First Amendment does not protect speech that is very likely going to cause imminent harm. It has nothing whatsoever to do with property rights. It is a "trope" because in rhetoric, it almost always used incorrectly to justify First Amendment exceptions which have nothing to do with imminent harm.
Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever.
> Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever.
Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you have the right to prevent your image from being used to endorse a product without your permission.
Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you have the right to prevent your image from being used to endorse a product without your permission.
Yep, that is a good point about the limitations. Point I was making is there is no wholesale property right, but you make an important note.
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 supreme court arguments, turned on a verbal 'deepfake', the depiction of a celebrity in a supposed real sexual situation without their consent. 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. Both are claiming an untruth, the creation of a fake sexual history, as a form of legitimate parody and comment on their public persona.
Also, half of all porn films. Does using a Charlie Sheen lookalike in the XXX version of Two and a Half Men constitute deepfake? ("Two and a Half Men", "The Big Bang Theory" ... Chuck Lorre was just begging for porn parodies.)
Download/watch "The People v. Larry Flint". I used to use clips as intros to first amendment and copyright law. It is a great movie.
There are some serious first amendment issues here. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, an iconic case that set the tone for modern supreme court arguments, turned on a verbal 'deepfake', the depiction of a celebrity in a supposed real sexual situation without their consent. 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. Both are claiming an untruth, the creation of a fake sexual history, as a form of legitimate parody and comment on their public persona.
Also, half of all porn films. Does using a Charlie Sheen lookalike in the XXX version of Two and a Half Men constitute deepfake? ("Two and a Half Men", "The Big Bang Theory" ... Chuck Lorre was just begging for porn parodies.)
Download/watch "The People v. Larry Flint". I used to use clips as intros to first amendment and copyright law. It is a great movie.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
[deleted]
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.
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 difference in how we perceive the realness of text and photorealistic images. People understand that text is inherently a medium in which reality is filtered through the interpretation of the writer. In other words, we’re comfortable with the idea that text is an unreliable medium. Photorealistic images are different in that regard. If people can’t tell that a video is fake by looking, it’s reasonable to expect that they will assume it’s real.
Who's Nailin Palin?
That’s ridiculous. Nobody who knew Sarah Pailin would mistake an actress for her.
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 difference in how we perceive the realness of text and photorealistic images. People understand that text is inherently a medium in which reality is filtered through the interpretation of the writer. In other words, we’re comfortable with the idea that text is an unreliable medium. Photorealistic images are different in that regard. If people can’t tell that a video is fake by looking, it’s reasonable to expect that they will assume it’s real.
Who's Nailin Palin?
That’s ridiculous. Nobody who knew Sarah Pailin would mistake an actress for her.
>> 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.
"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.
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.
What about the "I can see Russia from my house" line? A ton of people believed (and some likely still believe) that Palin said that. She didn't. Tina Fey said that.
What about it? I'm also happy to stipulate former college football all-star Gerald Ford wasn't actually a klutz.
That's not at all the case, no. If you use extraordinary new computing facilities to create a convincing facsimile of a public person having sex with someone else on camera, you're very unlikely to skate on the "reasonable person" standard. I remain interested in how familiar you are with deepfake technology, because it is nothing at all like the Falwell parody in Hustler or the porn parody film you just cited.
I am well aware of what can be done having once worked in film/TV production. But the quality of the fake is irrelevant. Falwell involved an absolutely perfect fake. It was a text interview. There was nothing in the interview, beyond the nature of the content, that suggested it wasn't real. They even used his real face in the portrait. Surely more than a few people fell for the gag. The parallels to a modern deepfake porn parody are clear.
https://frontpageconfidential.com/larry-flynt-supreme-court-...
https://frontpageconfidential.com/larry-flynt-supreme-court-...
This doesn't even cohere as an argument. The "absolutely perfect fake" you're referring to was a parody (print) Campari ad with nothing but a headshot of Falwell and an "interview" that opened with "My first time was in an outhouse outside Lynchburg, Virginia"; "Wasn't it a little cramped?"; "Not after I kicked the goat out". A deepfake uses GANs to synthesize a convincing video of its subject, something that wasn't even technologically possible a few years ago.
As I showed you a moment ago, even the syllabus of Rehnquist's opinion acknowledges that no reasonable person could have believed the Hustler ad to be true.
I'm becoming convinced that you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
As I showed you a moment ago, even the syllabus of Rehnquist's opinion acknowledges that no reasonable person could have believed the Hustler ad to be true.
I'm becoming convinced that you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
I think the point that sandworm101 is trying to make is that for the medium, it was a perfect fake.
One could make the argument that due to the ubiquity of photoshop and "shooped memes," the fact that both livestreamers and TV networks regularly employ digital makeup filters, and the continued press that deepfake technology recieves -- there is no reason for any reasonable person to assume any piece digial media hasn't been substantially altered...
(especially now that the term "fake news" has become a tumour on our lexicon)
One could make the argument that due to the ubiquity of photoshop and "shooped memes," the fact that both livestreamers and TV networks regularly employ digital makeup filters, and the continued press that deepfake technology recieves -- there is no reason for any reasonable person to assume any piece digial media hasn't been substantially altered...
(especially now that the term "fake news" has become a tumour on our lexicon)
One could make all sorts of arguments, but in fact a spoof print ad for Campari and a deep fake video are not the same thing. In particular, the law does not operate based on the kinds of logic that prevails on message boards, as the previous commenter, a lawyer, must know.
In fairness, "a fake so perfect, you can't tell it's fake (other than by its content)" is the work of a trained professional. Few among us message board amateurs so effortlessly reach for the sublime.
But the quality of the fake is irrelevant.
According to whom?
Falwell involved an absolutely perfect fake
If that were true, written accounts would be as video when used as evidence in a court of law. You may be surprised to learn that this is not in fact the case.
According to whom?
Falwell involved an absolutely perfect fake
If that were true, written accounts would be as video when used as evidence in a court of law. You may be surprised to learn that this is not in fact the case.
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.
It’s both. If there was a way to state the law in such a way that it was always clear when and how to apply it, there would be no need for courts and judges.
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?
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.
Does the wording in fact contradict Hustler Magazine v. Falwell? Would it outlaw satyrical images of politicians? Thus my question above.
[deleted]
>>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 trying to do, add this to that list.
>>Does using a Charlie Sheen lookalike in the XXX version of Two and a Half Men constitute deepfake?
No. That actor isn't credited as "Charlie Sheen", he's credited as <actor's name>. This is not the same thing. He is not representing himself as actually being Charlie Sheen, but possibly the character of "Charlie Sheen".
You're a man of the law: how would you protect these women from revenge porn if this law offends you so? Or are you more of a "sticks and stones and sending my mother an image of what appears to be me getting penetrated in my asshole will never hurt me" type of guy?
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 trying to do, add this to that list.
>>Does using a Charlie Sheen lookalike in the XXX version of Two and a Half Men constitute deepfake?
No. That actor isn't credited as "Charlie Sheen", he's credited as <actor's name>. This is not the same thing. He is not representing himself as actually being Charlie Sheen, but possibly the character of "Charlie Sheen".
You're a man of the law: how would you protect these women from revenge porn if this law offends you so? Or are you more of a "sticks and stones and sending my mother an image of what appears to be me getting penetrated in my asshole will never hurt me" type of guy?
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 with revenge porn – to draw a connection.
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 with revenge porn – to draw a connection.
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.
I Am Definitely Not A Constitutional Lawyer.
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.
Freedom of speech, should apply reguardless of good faith. Who would you have draw the line?
I 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.
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.
> "[...] — 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.
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.
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?
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
Libel is illegal and in the same category.
It's a tort, not a crime. The individual you defamed can sue you in civil court over the damage you do to their reputation, but the US government can't prosecute you for it.
Very disappointed but very unsurprised to see that the initial HN reaction is "this shouldn't be illegal". Where is your respect for others?
"respect" isn't generally something that is, or should be, enforced by laws.
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?
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?
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.
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.
The answer to disrespect isn't "make it a crime." A crime is a serious matter. Few things should be crimes.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think your "BUT" should be "AND".
Shouldn't this already be covered by defamation and/or laws related to truth in marketing?
> laws related to truth in marketing
I'm a regular joe consumer, and as far as I can tell, there are either no such laws, or they are never enforced.
I'm a regular joe consumer, and as far as I can tell, there are either no such laws, or they are never enforced.
Yeah, this clearly counts as defamation in my opinion. It'd be difficult to prove damages, though, so it's unlikely to ever come to trial. Adding this as a category of per se defamation so that plaintiffs no longer need to prove economic harm from it seems like the natural solution to me.
There's a good chance that this law is unconstitutional, but I doubt anyone wants to be the first to test their luck in court.
Deepfake revenge porn could be counter-intuitively good for privacy. If people's real porn images get leaked, they can just claim it was deepfaked.
Trying to make a law against this could actually be a massive overreaction.
Trying to make a law against this could actually be a massive overreaction.
This is a strange law:
> Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person" includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-386.2
A kid makes a pencil drawing of the school principal in a compromising situation and posts it to Instagram.
Legal?
A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram.
Legal?
A kid uses software he downloaded to generate a realistic depiction of the school principal in a compromising situation and posts it to Instagram.
Legal?