Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
alixkun🎩🍡
@alixkun
As 1st amendment absolutist as one can be, I don't think "manipulating people" is something that should be protected under free speech. idk, is that a hot take?
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
1. How do you define manipulating people? Who is the expert to decide what is correct. 2. We have clear case law and tests for the exceptions. So you're proposing we update those. That requires a constitutional amendment, which seems unlikely. Or SCOTUS to throw out a bunch of 1st Amendment case law.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
alixkun🎩🍡
@alixkun
1/ Reality? 🤷♂️ Manipulating people in my book is lying to them to achieve an expected result. Maybe deceiving is a better word if you will. 2/No comment about that part. I'm not a constitutionalist, so I wouldn't dare elaborate on what that could look like.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> Manipulating people in my book is lying to them to achieve an expected result. Maybe deceiving is a better word if you will. But who decides if it was a lie? Are proposing a taking anyone to court for saying something that's later found to be a lie? And again, there's already a Supreme Court defined test for what "false" information is not protected by free speech. The bar is *really high*, especially with regard to public officials and people of public interest. So outside of a Constitution amendment or Supreme Court changing tack, any attempt at passing a law to circumvent is illegal. It's how our system works.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
alixkun🎩🍡
@alixkun
>Are you proposing taking anyone to court for saying something that's later found to be a lie? Isn't it what Defamation cases are basically? We're talking about Deepfake, which in most political cases, aim at hurting one candidate's reputation by associating them with words they haven't said or acts they didn't do. I wouldn't be surprised if this type of deepfake ends up being treated in the same way as defamation. And Defamation is clearly not protected by Free Speech.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
I brought this up earlier, but public officials and public figures don't have the same protections for defamation and libel. There's a higher standard. This has existed for decades, pre-deepfakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
alixkun🎩🍡
@alixkun
Higher standards doesn't mean unprotected. Same conclusion as our precedent exchange, I guess at this point we're both speculating on different court's ruling that are both likely, but we just think they have different odds of happening :)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
