No one said it was. What I said was that it doesn’t matter if it’s satire or not, it’s still classified as free speech, until a court proves otherwise.
On April 28, 2025, Congress passed S. 146, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a bill that criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including “digital forgeries” (i.e., deep fakes), in certain circumstances.
That’s satire though.
Under any reasonable court (big caveat for American courts right now) that’s free speech.
And under any court at all, so is this. That’s the problem.
how can an ai bot pull a free speech defense? free speech is, ostensibly, reserved for people…?
Are you under the impression that the AI bot was not created by people?
So? The manufacturer of the product is not responsible for how people use the product. Otherwise there would be no gun manufacturers anymore.
Not really sure what you’re trying to say here but it sounds like you’re agreeing with me.
I disagree here, but I’m not a lawyer
Based on what? Who have you seen be convicted of making deepfake porn? Under what law?
Uhm, there have been plenty of cases of people getting in trouble for sharing deepfake porn yes. It’s sexual harassment.
Well, at least over here in Europe, and it’s mostly been with teenagers, I don’t know the situation on the US
But generally, making and sharing porn of real people is… well… that can very easily count as sexual harassement
I disagree that Grok appears as any form of satire here
No one said it was. What I said was that it doesn’t matter if it’s satire or not, it’s still classified as free speech, until a court proves otherwise.
Take it down act
On April 28, 2025, Congress passed S. 146, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a bill that criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including “digital forgeries” (i.e., deep fakes), in certain circumstances.
Hmm, interesting, thanks. Has anyone been charged or convicted with this law yet?
Definitely not convicted. That’d be some crazy speed.
However, your insistence that it hasn’t happened yet so can’t happen is insane. There has to be a first case in which it hadn’t happened before.
It would be insane if that was what I had insisted, but that didn’t happen. You just made it up.
Then you’re provided a law where it’d be illegal:
This seems to heavily imply you don’t believe it’s illegal until someone’s been convicted.
Is providing it over a private channel to a singular user publication?
I suspect that you will have to directly regulate image generation
Its already being done to help prevent fake CSAM.
That should have been standard from the start.
I don’t think anyone has any delusions that Twitter is private, not even DM’s.