Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
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
24 reactions
Alex
@asenderling.eth
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/
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Are you familiar with Falwell? Unanimous decision in favor of free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Alex
@asenderling.eth
I think there's some key nuance here. In the paordy ad, there was a disclaimer stating that it was parody, this caused the lower court to rule that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [Falwell] or actual events in which [he] participated." The ruling in this case seems to repeatedly rely on this finding, as it is repeated multiple times throughout the unanimous opinion. It seems that none of the signed Bills represent a direct contradiction (depending on enforcement): 2655: Specific to online platforms requiring them to label or remove, "*Materially* deceptive *and* digitally modified or created content" AB 2839: Prohibits a committee or other entity is prohibited from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election material containing *materially* deceptive AI-generated or manipulated content AB 2355: Requires a disclosure when electoral advertisements use AI-generated or substantially altered content.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
