Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
If you’re skeptical that the 1st Amendment is important and worth defending even for people whose views your find despicable, recommend two documentaries: https://www.pbs.org/video/floyd-abrams-speaking-freely-x7eahq/ https://www.mightyira.com/
4 replies
1 recast
15 reactions
nomygod
@nomygod.eth
the first Amendment not include purposeful deception that causes harm, such as fraud, false advertising, defamation, perjury, or incitement to violence. these have been legally ruled as falling outside first amendment protections because they serve no legitimate public interest and can lead to harm.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
What’s your point?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
nomygod
@nomygod.eth
thats what i was basically asking you with the conflation of first amendment rights and the thing gavin newsom signed. (this type of) deception isn't covered under first amendment rights. so yes first amendment rights are super important but also they're not under attack ? idk i just feel like that's not clear
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Misinformation and parody -- i.e. deepfakes -- are protected by 1st Amendment and current case law? You would have to prove a higher standard like fraud or actual malice. California doesn't get to decide this. It's not how our legal system works. Here are the citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez (falsity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell (parody) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
alixkun🟣🎩🍡
@alixkun
The bills presentation repeatedly mentions "deceptive" as the content targeted by the bill. I don't see how, in this context, it will be difficult to prove actual malice if someone retweets a non-parody deepfake: "The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." If Elon shares a deepfake about Kamala, without mentioning it's a parody, I'm pretty confident this will fall under the "actual malice" category, at least for the "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not".
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
