Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/politics
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
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
22 replies
0 recast
18 reactions

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
There are countless real opportunities to dunk on dems and/or Kamala, but really, the regulation of Deepfakes is not it...
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Interesting tactic to accuse the person bringing facts having not read them, but guess we will wait for the court to rule then. :) Suggest you also read about the court’s rules for parody and whether it has to be disclosed or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
Sorry if it appeared sarcastic, that was an actual question, because there are multiple points that clearly don't go in the direction of your argument when you read into the case details, yet you still chose to share that page with me. I'll also read the one about parody, but not sure that's relevant here, since California's law doesn't address parody.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
None taken. :) Serious question: what’s the difference between a deepfake and parody? Anyways, the Supreme Court will decide here. And “actual malice” from NYT v. Sullivan will also be relevant. Hard to imagine the current SCOTUS would side with California. And worth noting Sullivan and Falwell were unanimous decisions. A rare bipartisan issue for the current court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction