Don't let the pesky first amendment get in the way of a emotionally charged law. This is literally how all rights get taken away. You find an issue that is emotionally charged, then say some "new doohickey" causes it to now be different than it ever was in the past (fear mongering), talk about how this could possibly be impacting and we must take extreme measures by limiting freedoms (cast uncertainty), finally indicate that society will crumble due to this (doubt).
Same playbook regardless of issue. People in power stirred up by busy bodies have been doing this repeatedly for 100 years. I do find it odd that originally these kind of things were pushed by religious fundamentalists. Many laws were passed based upon religious fundamentalist ideas that restrict behaviors and restrict speech. The entire liberal push used to be to strip down these restrictions because they fundamentally violated some of the core freedoms we're granted in a free country.
Now it seems the script has flipped. I see more liberals pushing for restrictions of Rights and freedoms than I do religious conservatives. No good deed goes unpunished and no emotionally feel good law will remain unabused by those in power.
So while it's easy to agree with this core idea that deep fake porn is bad, it's conveying a new right that has never been conveyed before. This idea that you have ownership of your image and how it is used. Depending on how you twist the words this could crush a satire completely. This can crush freedom of artistic expression. This is ripe for abuse because it's so emotionally charged is why you get a unanimous but vote. Politicians hoping to gain brownie points but understand the court will largely gut this bill. Unfortunately the people who have their rights violated, the actual enumerated and protected rights, not the emotional feel good things people think are rights, have no recourse other than spending large amounts of money or hoping the ACLU will take up this fight.
When the first amendment was drafted 233 years ago do you think they anticipated that one day anyone would be able to speak in anyone else's voice, indistinguishably from if they had actually said it? The constitution does occasionally need re-evaluating in light of new technology, like when the right to bear arms was effectively narrowed to the right to bear some arms when the most powerful weapons vastly outstripped what the general public could reasonably be expected to handle. Few people will unironically argue that 2A means that everyone should be allowed to have a nuke.
But if we make it clear the impressionist is doing an impression of a famous person we're good? Because this law disregards that, you can clearly label something as "fake" and it doesn't matter, you're still liable as long as it appears authentic. A good impressionist would appear authentic.
> Depending on how you twist the words this could crush a satire completely. This can crush freedom of artistic expression. This is ripe for abuse because it's so emotionally charged is why you get a unanimous but vote.
Who's fear-mongering now?
If you read the bill you'll see that to be liable 1) it must depict an intimate scene, 2) it must be done knowingly, 3) it must be indistinguishable from a real person and 4) it must be done without their consent.
That's a pretty reasonable standard IMO. This certainly doesn't include political speech or satire, unless your satire must include photorealistic porn.
5 years ago, I couldn’t say “hey computer, make me a video of Jane Smith having sex with 3 guys, and also John Doe pointing a rifle at a baby”. I missed the part of the 1st amendment that gives me an inalienable right to make realistic images without someone’s permission of them doing things they wouldn’t do.
Same playbook regardless of issue. People in power stirred up by busy bodies have been doing this repeatedly for 100 years. I do find it odd that originally these kind of things were pushed by religious fundamentalists. Many laws were passed based upon religious fundamentalist ideas that restrict behaviors and restrict speech. The entire liberal push used to be to strip down these restrictions because they fundamentally violated some of the core freedoms we're granted in a free country.
Now it seems the script has flipped. I see more liberals pushing for restrictions of Rights and freedoms than I do religious conservatives. No good deed goes unpunished and no emotionally feel good law will remain unabused by those in power.
So while it's easy to agree with this core idea that deep fake porn is bad, it's conveying a new right that has never been conveyed before. This idea that you have ownership of your image and how it is used. Depending on how you twist the words this could crush a satire completely. This can crush freedom of artistic expression. This is ripe for abuse because it's so emotionally charged is why you get a unanimous but vote. Politicians hoping to gain brownie points but understand the court will largely gut this bill. Unfortunately the people who have their rights violated, the actual enumerated and protected rights, not the emotional feel good things people think are rights, have no recourse other than spending large amounts of money or hoping the ACLU will take up this fight.