Except there are. We explicitly have laws about slander and libel. Nothing is stopping a person from stating their beliefs. Nothing is stopping a person from creating political satire and...
There’s no exception under the First Amendment for false or misleading political speech, even lies, he said.
Except there are. We explicitly have laws about slander and libel. Nothing is stopping a person from stating their beliefs. Nothing is stopping a person from creating political satire and satirical cartoon depictions of other people. That's very different from fabricating claims that someone else said or did something.
To be clear, this is an effort to create a legal loophole to effectively neuter slander/libel laws. Conceptually, they just have to create and release a deep fake into the wild and just repeat it. Then they're shielded from the law because they had "reasonable evidence to believe it was true". They'll probably also use weasel words like "allegedly" to further hedge their legal position.
Edit:
For clarity, my position is Deep fakes are a direct infringement on free speech. It allows one to create a plausible photorealistic depiction of someone else and put words in their mouth and force actions upon them like puppets. It's a way to launder slander/libel. Deep fakes are just a depiction of slanderous/libelous narratives; they're taking a false narrative and passing it off as truth. Instead of saying it, they depict it in such a realistic manner that a person wouldn't question believing it.
That's the entire point of slander/libel laws. The difference between slander/libel and satire, parody, etc, is if a reasonable person would confuse it for truth.
While Musk can go fuck himself, I'm not sure its that easy with deepfakes. Well yes, but if I post a letter and claim it was written by a president when it clearly wasn't, that's protected. If I...
While Musk can go fuck himself, I'm not sure its that easy with deepfakes.
That's the entire point of slander/libel laws. The difference between slander/libel and satire, parody, etc, is if a reasonable person would confuse it for truth.
Well yes, but if I post a letter and claim it was written by a president when it clearly wasn't, that's protected. If I hire a lookalike actor who is extremely exaggerated and silly, that's protected. The content matters a lot more than the medium, an having a sweeping take on ALL deepfakes is likely not going to (or well...shouldn't) pass muster.
If I have a deepfake of Trump doing the exact same SNL skit a live actor did, that likely should be protected because the content is a serious part of the equation.
based on what I'm reading, none of the clauses are trying to do a blanket ban. the gist I can find of this law is: It seems very limited and reasonable in my eyes, especially since these feel like...
having a sweeping take on ALL deepfakes is likely not going to (or well...shouldn't) pass muster.
based on what I'm reading, none of the clauses are trying to do a blanket ban. the gist I can find of this law is:
Under the new law, anyone who widely shares a deep fake within 90 days of an
election is guilty of a crime if the person, both:
• Knows or should have known that the item was a deep fake made
without the consent of the depicted individual; and,
• Acts with the intent to harm a candidate’s reputation or influence the
result of an election
It seems very limited and reasonable in my eyes, especially since these feel like acts you'd normally sue for slander on. Intent matters more than the content.
I'm been thrashing a draft reply on and off throughout the day to your previous reply. You are right. I was being reductionist and there's certainly more nuance we can unpack. I was intentionally...
I'm been thrashing a draft reply on and off throughout the day to your previous reply. You are right. I was being reductionist and there's certainly more nuance we can unpack.
I was intentionally reductionist to pointedly comment about the type of content Elon is specifically advocating for. But certainly, as a medium it can contain multitudes. There's parody, satire, fan art, etc. Things which certainly are not transforms of liable/slander. However, you then get into more complicated legal/ethics questions about using a person's likeness/brand. There's a slew of issues like cyber bullying, acting/voice acting, endorsements, intellectual property etc etc off the top of my head.
Ultimately I just don't like nonconsensual deepfakes as a medium. Parody comics/cartoons/skits are clearly that, and when reposted/cropped/transformed they retain that context. Parody deepfakes that blur the line between reality can quickly lose that context when reposted/cropped/transformed. I just don't think it's worth trying to strike a legal distinction between acceptable and unacceptable nonconsensual deepfakes. You have to consider what will be allowed under the worst interpretation of the law. There's a lot of bad that can come from deepfakes which IMO massively outweighs the good.
As an aside, there's a distinction to be made between photorealistic AI generated content and deepfakes. Deepfakes specifically try to create realistic depictions of specific persons (their likeness, voice, mannerisms, etc). While I dislike the idea of nonconsensual deepfakes as a medium, I don't discount AI generated content wholesale. There's a difference between a randomly generated person (or a crafted character/person) that is photorealistic, and deliberately generating someone's specific likeness.
It's worth noting that not only is defamation extremely rarely prosecuted criminally, even in the states where there are criminal defamation laws on the books, and that there are huge limits on...
We explicitly have laws about slander and libel.
It's worth noting that not only is defamation extremely rarely prosecuted criminally, even in the states where there are criminal defamation laws on the books, and that there are huge limits on what can be considered defamation specifically because of the First Amendment. Public figures (which would absolutely include any politician) in particular have a very high burden to prove that a statement about them counts as defamation -- they need to prove that the state was made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The attempt to "neuter" slander/libel laws is unnecessary, because this is already how they work under the US constitution.
Moreover, I don't even think weakening existing defamation laws would be a bad thing. Defamation lawsuits are constantly abused by rich plaintiffs to bully people who criticize them or say things they disagree with, because the cost of defending against even a baseless defamation claim can be too onerous when the plaintiff is much richer than you. Trump has talked about wanting to strengthen defamation laws for this reason. This is the principle issue with defamation law in the US, not that it's too weak, and improving US defamation law would be best accomplished by passing federal anti-SLAPP that would cover costs for defendants and sanction plaintiffs for particularly baseless claims that are clearly made to suppress speech.
Musk has gained wealth and power specifically by spreading disinformation. There's no way to accept anything that he says at face value, we can assume that he doesn't care at all about free...
Musk has gained wealth and power specifically by spreading disinformation. There's no way to accept anything that he says at face value, we can assume that he doesn't care at all about free speech. He's a continuous example of the paradox of tolerance, using the freedom of a liberal democracy to undermine it.
The main premise of the article is that Tesla as a company is in big trouble due to the changing market and because of Musk's polarizing nature. Personally I've been hoping for his downfall because if the extreme damage he is doing to the world, and I thing of him as being a completely negative force.
In the article, Patrick George from InsideEVs and Charlie Warzel from The Atlantic have a more nuanced take on him. They seem to believe he's a genius that lost control of his ego. From the article:
And over time, we covered this guy and his company. It’s like, Hey! Here’s this quirky guy who’s kind of breaking all the rules, and he’s doing some cool stuff, and he’s also clearly an asshole too. And he’s insane about some things. But what they’re coming up with is this really interesting alternative to gas. And I can just say personally, you know, by the end of the last decade, I kind of realized that this is the future. This isn’t just a niche alternative to gasoline. It’s the future.
And that wouldn’t have happened without Tesla. But there are so many shades along the way of what happened with him that kind of inform where we’re at now, just the way that he treated the press, the way that he treated open access to his company, the way that he treated his own public image, the sort of vindictiveness against his enemies.
He can be very vain, certainly. He’s very obsessed with his own public image, you know, very vindictive—obviously, calling that cave diver the “pedo guy” or getting in a huge amount of trouble for saying he had the funds to take Tesla private. He had this Kanye West–like trajectory. It’s like, This guy’s brilliant, but he’s also horrible. And over time, the horrible part of him sort of overtakes that. But, you know, this amount of wealth that he amassed came with this tremendous amount of power. And I think he has gotten really into his own myth and own legend about exercising that power in unprecedented ways.
This isn't a glowing endorsement of him, but I still think it is too generous to both his contribution and to his intelligence.
Except there are. We explicitly have laws about slander and libel. Nothing is stopping a person from stating their beliefs. Nothing is stopping a person from creating political satire and satirical cartoon depictions of other people. That's very different from fabricating claims that someone else said or did something.
To be clear, this is an effort to create a legal loophole to effectively neuter slander/libel laws. Conceptually, they just have to create and release a deep fake into the wild and just repeat it. Then they're shielded from the law because they had "reasonable evidence to believe it was true". They'll probably also use weasel words like "allegedly" to further hedge their legal position.
Edit:
For clarity, my position is Deep fakes are a direct infringement on free speech. It allows one to create a plausible photorealistic depiction of someone else and put words in their mouth and force actions upon them like puppets. It's a way to launder slander/libel. Deep fakes are just a depiction of slanderous/libelous narratives; they're taking a false narrative and passing it off as truth. Instead of saying it, they depict it in such a realistic manner that a person wouldn't question believing it.
That's the entire point of slander/libel laws. The difference between slander/libel and satire, parody, etc, is if a reasonable person would confuse it for truth.
While Musk can go fuck himself, I'm not sure its that easy with deepfakes.
Well yes, but if I post a letter and claim it was written by a president when it clearly wasn't, that's protected. If I hire a lookalike actor who is extremely exaggerated and silly, that's protected. The content matters a lot more than the medium, an having a sweeping take on ALL deepfakes is likely not going to (or well...shouldn't) pass muster.
If I have a deepfake of Trump doing the exact same SNL skit a live actor did, that likely should be protected because the content is a serious part of the equation.
based on what I'm reading, none of the clauses are trying to do a blanket ban. the gist I can find of this law is:
It seems very limited and reasonable in my eyes, especially since these feel like acts you'd normally sue for slander on. Intent matters more than the content.
Oh i agree. Was responding to OP's take-
I'm been thrashing a draft reply on and off throughout the day to your previous reply. You are right. I was being reductionist and there's certainly more nuance we can unpack.
I was intentionally reductionist to pointedly comment about the type of content Elon is specifically advocating for. But certainly, as a medium it can contain multitudes. There's parody, satire, fan art, etc. Things which certainly are not transforms of liable/slander. However, you then get into more complicated legal/ethics questions about using a person's likeness/brand. There's a slew of issues like cyber bullying, acting/voice acting, endorsements, intellectual property etc etc off the top of my head.
Ultimately I just don't like nonconsensual deepfakes as a medium. Parody comics/cartoons/skits are clearly that, and when reposted/cropped/transformed they retain that context. Parody deepfakes that blur the line between reality can quickly lose that context when reposted/cropped/transformed. I just don't think it's worth trying to strike a legal distinction between acceptable and unacceptable nonconsensual deepfakes. You have to consider what will be allowed under the worst interpretation of the law. There's a lot of bad that can come from deepfakes which IMO massively outweighs the good.
As an aside, there's a distinction to be made between photorealistic AI generated content and deepfakes. Deepfakes specifically try to create realistic depictions of specific persons (their likeness, voice, mannerisms, etc). While I dislike the idea of nonconsensual deepfakes as a medium, I don't discount AI generated content wholesale. There's a difference between a randomly generated person (or a crafted character/person) that is photorealistic, and deliberately generating someone's specific likeness.
It's worth noting that not only is defamation extremely rarely prosecuted criminally, even in the states where there are criminal defamation laws on the books, and that there are huge limits on what can be considered defamation specifically because of the First Amendment. Public figures (which would absolutely include any politician) in particular have a very high burden to prove that a statement about them counts as defamation -- they need to prove that the state was made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The attempt to "neuter" slander/libel laws is unnecessary, because this is already how they work under the US constitution.
Moreover, I don't even think weakening existing defamation laws would be a bad thing. Defamation lawsuits are constantly abused by rich plaintiffs to bully people who criticize them or say things they disagree with, because the cost of defending against even a baseless defamation claim can be too onerous when the plaintiff is much richer than you. Trump has talked about wanting to strengthen defamation laws for this reason. This is the principle issue with defamation law in the US, not that it's too weak, and improving US defamation law would be best accomplished by passing federal anti-SLAPP that would cover costs for defendants and sanction plaintiffs for particularly baseless claims that are clearly made to suppress speech.
Musk has gained wealth and power specifically by spreading disinformation. There's no way to accept anything that he says at face value, we can assume that he doesn't care at all about free speech. He's a continuous example of the paradox of tolerance, using the freedom of a liberal democracy to undermine it.
There's a recent article about him on The Atlantic: Elon Musk's Luck Runs Out.
The main premise of the article is that Tesla as a company is in big trouble due to the changing market and because of Musk's polarizing nature. Personally I've been hoping for his downfall because if the extreme damage he is doing to the world, and I thing of him as being a completely negative force.
In the article, Patrick George from InsideEVs and Charlie Warzel from The Atlantic have a more nuanced take on him. They seem to believe he's a genius that lost control of his ego. From the article:
This isn't a glowing endorsement of him, but I still think it is too generous to both his contribution and to his intelligence.