politics

So is the JD Vance couch joke illegal now? Or is it only materially deceptive if it's from one party?

So is the JD Vance couch joke illegal now? Or is it only materially deceptive if it's from one party?

https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1836188721663873324

Working on Farcaster and Warpcast. Longer thoughts at https://dwr.email

There are countless real opportunities to dunk on dems and/or Kamala, but really, the regulation of Deepfakes is not it...

/monad ecosystem growth | ex telco.in & everwave.xyz founder | /music moderator | writing on web3 & culture https://paragraph.xyz/@alixkun.eth

There’s no such thing as regulating speech in the US.

Supreme Court rulings are not regulations.

Also this is a law, not a regulation.

I don't intend to fight for the term "regulation". Let's replace it by "codification in law", if you will. My point remains though. Let's stop pretending Free Speech is limitless. As society evolves, limitations to free speech have been implemented, to mitigate threats. The ones that are coming for deep fakes will just be another one. One that is, imo, well needed.

I never said free speech was limitless. 

There are clear Supreme Court cases addressing falsity and parody. 

“Deepfake” is an ambiguous term and will likely be struck down by the court. California doesn’t get to decide how the 1st Amendment works. That’s not how our legal system is set up.

Looks like all 3 bills are specific to digitally altered or AI created deceptive content. The devil is certainly in the details, but in general it seems we should prohibit deepfakes of politicians saying/doing thing imo

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/09/17/governor-newsom-signs-bills-to-combat-deepfake-election-content/

You didn't say it explicitly, but when you pretend to believe JD Vance couch joke would be affected by this, implying this is an attack on parody and comedy, that's being bad faith. As pointed out rightfully by @asenderling.eth , this is targeted to intentionally deceptive content, not parody or comedy

Coinbase employee (Investigatooor), personal account. Onchain is the future.

You didn't say it explicitly, but when you pretend to believe JD Vance couch joke would be affected by this, implying this is an attack on parody and comedy, that's being bad faith. As pointed out rightfully by @asenderling.eth , this is targeted to intentionally deceptive content, not parody or comedy

https://warpcast.com/asenderling.eth/0x671e6620

If you think Supreme Court precedent on free speech supports your argument around preventing “misinformation” while Alvarez is the law of the land on falsity I don’t think this is going to be productive.

Did you actually read that wikipedia page? Because there are a lot of interesting details regarding that case. (I didnt know about it, I just learned about them)

First of all, the 2005 Stolen Valor law was edited based on the supreme court feedback, and passed in 2013. It essentially remains the same, except that there has to be a material proof the person is trying to get benefit from the false statement.

Another interesting point is that one of the main justification for overturning the 2005 law was that it was too broad and encompassed cases where it didn't create any harm to anyone. With Deepfakes, especially political ones intended for manipulation, that's specifically not true. It causes direct harm to a candidate and to voters.

So yeah actually, based on the full story as described on this wikipedia page, I do believe the supreme court precedent on free speech supports my argument.

If you think Supreme Court precedent on free speech supports your argument around preventing “misinformation” while Alvarez is the law of the land on falsity I don’t think this is going to be productive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez