X, the social media platform owned by Trump adviser Elon Musk, is challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota ban on using deepfakes to influence elections and harm candidates.
So, I hate Elon. I’m going to start with that, please don’t misconstrue this is a defense of him. However, when it comes to this. The argument for the suit is that the first amendment protects it. The first amendment protects a lot of speech that I don’t agree with, doesn’t mean it can’t be said. I think, if we were trying to combat deepfakes, without stepping on the constitution, it could be done with a required disclaimer on deepfakes, that, if it isn’t there, opens up the creator, or platform, to legal repercussions. Or something along those lines.
I kind of get that, but words have to have consequeces, if I’m an influential person with millions of followers and I tweet, kill the rich, I’m going to jail for inciting violence. When the right wing starts calling leftists terrorists, that’s the same thing. They don’t want FREE speech, they want their own free hate speech and propaganda. And by now I think it’s pretty clear your consitution needs a few new amendments to ensure (if you survive this presidency) that no person or group can holdthe country hostage like this.
Too much money in politics was always going to lead here.
Also, the left is still playing by the rules while Trump has repeatedly shat on the constitution.
I don’t disagree entirely, but, how would you amend it then?
I mean we’re talking about one of, if not the most cited amendments in the constitution. Of all things, Americans hate being told what they can and can’t say.
Again, I don’t disagree with your sentiment, especially cause you’re not wrong, one side is uprooting everything while claiming to be “playing by the rules” or “protecting American rights.”
Thankfully I’m not an american and don’t have that problem, I mean you could hold a national referendum, a vote for transparency? I mean adverts for medication have disclaimers, America is known universally for it’s litigation and hence masses of discliamers, can’t obviously fake news be treated that way, a disclaimer that this article, clip etc is opion based and NOT factual?
I’m not too well versed on the constitution, but it seems to be bandied about a lot (especially the 2nd amendment, which isn’t even followed as I believe it mentions well organised militias or so).
I feel like the entire US political system needs an overhaul, and yes I know it’s an easy thing to say, but near impossible to do with such a divided population.
I literally said you could display a banner that discloses that it’s a deepfake, that was my actual solution, rather than banning the medium of speech outright.
We do need an overhaul.
This individual lawsuit, though, isn’t all that unjust because Elon’s name is attached to it. You shouldn’t be able to ban a vehicle of speech because you don’t agree with it. Fuck, I don’t agree with it, and actually was equally grossed out about the lawsuit, until I did some digging on what 1st amendment lawyers were saying about it. Just because I don’t like it, doesn’t mean it should be banned.
I agree with the overall sentiment of what you’re conveying about the country, in my opinion though, this lawsuit, isn’t a super effective way to voice those concerns. We do need overhaul, shit is broken. However, my state telling me what I can and cannot say, and how, is not okay with me. I hate Elon, unfortunately, a broken clock is right twice a day, even if he has ulterior motives, there are more effective ways to have change and not infringe on people’s rights.
I never mentioned the 2nd amendment.
I’ve actually thought about how to enact change with politics the way they are, and I’m not sure it happens, people in power have too much to lose. Really sad state of the US.
I meantioned the 2nd simply because it’s something that I see constantly being challenged online as to what it actually means, and how people seem to pick and choose parts of an amendment.
As for the free speech, well at the end of the day it’s up to you to collectively decide where free speech ends and hate and violent incitment begins. The Europeans have their versions of that, obviously that’s suited to them, but obviously America is a different kettle of fish.
Actually, a society deems what is acceptable speech, and it changes all the time. Not being allowed to lie about your political opponents is not an infringement upon the first amendment if the people don’t believe it to be so, and the people ha e passed a bill saying as much. You cannot currently badmouth the president without being swarmed by federal agents in unmarked vehicles wearing plainclothes. That is a much bigger problem and proof that the first amendment is under attack, not a law passed by the established methods for passing a law deeming certain forms of speech as unacceptable in a political capacity.
Free speech is incredibly important but it has fundamental issues that should not be undermined for the sake of protecting the core concepts of free speech.
For instance, lying is protected speech. You can lie all day long. That’s your choice and it is up to those who listen to decide for themselves whether they believe you or not.
You could choose to lie about something someone else said. That is also protected speech. Again, it is up to the listener to choose their own beliefs.
But is it free speech to create a near perfect facsimile of someone saying or doing something that they never said or did? Perhaps if it is just for parody purposes. But if it is meant to amplify a political message built upon a lie, then no, no it is not. Why? Because it skips an important epistemological step whereby the recipient of the message knows it came from a third party and their belief of the message is predicated on their knowledge it came from someone else who may or may not be believable.
So if it is a deepfake the message can appear, credulously, to come directly from a political opponent. If it is just a slanderous lie about that political opponent, it must come from from a third party of which belief is a necessary component in communication.
Society doesn’t imprison you for saying the N word. It’s not socially acceptable, but you won’t face legal repercussions.
The law that was passed is too broad. It blanket bans deep fakes. That’s the issue. Not that I’m really complaining that they do, I don’t like them, but because I do not like it, is not justification. The law doesn’t target political speech, just deepfakes as a whole. Also, political speech is some of the most highly defended when it comes to the first amendment.
Politicians have been lying about each other for longer than deepfakes and will continue to do so.
Subd. 2.Use of deep fake to influence an election; violation. A person who disseminates a deep fake or enters into a contract or other agreement to disseminate a deep fake is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3 if the person knows or reasonably should know that the item being disseminated is a deep fake and dissemination:
(1) takes place within 90 days before an election;
(2) is made without the consent of the depicted individual; and
(3) is made with the intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election.
Never did I say there wasn’t. However, the first amendment protects all kinds of false speech, except in some very narrow exceptions. Here’s an interesting interview. it’s at the bottom of your want to read, otherwise, it’s a decent listen.
Deepfakes being introduced to mainstream would just lead to them proliferating being shared on social media/texts/emails etc… The disclaimers would be cropped out, watermarks would be blurred or removed, and the general public who eats up rage baiting content would be effectively be forcefed even more misinformation in their feeds.
I’m sure there are good ways to prevent this, but the average user/consumer isn’t going to put much effort into disproving what they are seeing. Esppecially if that content fits their narrative and reinforces their beliefs and tribal alignment.
So, I hate Elon. I’m going to start with that, please don’t misconstrue this is a defense of him. However, when it comes to this. The argument for the suit is that the first amendment protects it. The first amendment protects a lot of speech that I don’t agree with, doesn’t mean it can’t be said. I think, if we were trying to combat deepfakes, without stepping on the constitution, it could be done with a required disclaimer on deepfakes, that, if it isn’t there, opens up the creator, or platform, to legal repercussions. Or something along those lines.
I kind of get that, but words have to have consequeces, if I’m an influential person with millions of followers and I tweet, kill the rich, I’m going to jail for inciting violence. When the right wing starts calling leftists terrorists, that’s the same thing. They don’t want FREE speech, they want their own free hate speech and propaganda. And by now I think it’s pretty clear your consitution needs a few new amendments to ensure (if you survive this presidency) that no person or group can holdthe country hostage like this. Too much money in politics was always going to lead here. Also, the left is still playing by the rules while Trump has repeatedly shat on the constitution.
I don’t disagree entirely, but, how would you amend it then?
I mean we’re talking about one of, if not the most cited amendments in the constitution. Of all things, Americans hate being told what they can and can’t say.
Again, I don’t disagree with your sentiment, especially cause you’re not wrong, one side is uprooting everything while claiming to be “playing by the rules” or “protecting American rights.”
It’s an interesting case for sure.
Thankfully I’m not an american and don’t have that problem, I mean you could hold a national referendum, a vote for transparency? I mean adverts for medication have disclaimers, America is known universally for it’s litigation and hence masses of discliamers, can’t obviously fake news be treated that way, a disclaimer that this article, clip etc is opion based and NOT factual? I’m not too well versed on the constitution, but it seems to be bandied about a lot (especially the 2nd amendment, which isn’t even followed as I believe it mentions well organised militias or so). I feel like the entire US political system needs an overhaul, and yes I know it’s an easy thing to say, but near impossible to do with such a divided population.
I literally said you could display a banner that discloses that it’s a deepfake, that was my actual solution, rather than banning the medium of speech outright.
We do need an overhaul.
This individual lawsuit, though, isn’t all that unjust because Elon’s name is attached to it. You shouldn’t be able to ban a vehicle of speech because you don’t agree with it. Fuck, I don’t agree with it, and actually was equally grossed out about the lawsuit, until I did some digging on what 1st amendment lawyers were saying about it. Just because I don’t like it, doesn’t mean it should be banned.
I agree with the overall sentiment of what you’re conveying about the country, in my opinion though, this lawsuit, isn’t a super effective way to voice those concerns. We do need overhaul, shit is broken. However, my state telling me what I can and cannot say, and how, is not okay with me. I hate Elon, unfortunately, a broken clock is right twice a day, even if he has ulterior motives, there are more effective ways to have change and not infringe on people’s rights.
I never mentioned the 2nd amendment.
I’ve actually thought about how to enact change with politics the way they are, and I’m not sure it happens, people in power have too much to lose. Really sad state of the US.
I meantioned the 2nd simply because it’s something that I see constantly being challenged online as to what it actually means, and how people seem to pick and choose parts of an amendment. As for the free speech, well at the end of the day it’s up to you to collectively decide where free speech ends and hate and violent incitment begins. The Europeans have their versions of that, obviously that’s suited to them, but obviously America is a different kettle of fish.
Actually, a society deems what is acceptable speech, and it changes all the time. Not being allowed to lie about your political opponents is not an infringement upon the first amendment if the people don’t believe it to be so, and the people ha e passed a bill saying as much. You cannot currently badmouth the president without being swarmed by federal agents in unmarked vehicles wearing plainclothes. That is a much bigger problem and proof that the first amendment is under attack, not a law passed by the established methods for passing a law deeming certain forms of speech as unacceptable in a political capacity.
Free speech is incredibly important but it has fundamental issues that should not be undermined for the sake of protecting the core concepts of free speech.
For instance, lying is protected speech. You can lie all day long. That’s your choice and it is up to those who listen to decide for themselves whether they believe you or not.
You could choose to lie about something someone else said. That is also protected speech. Again, it is up to the listener to choose their own beliefs.
But is it free speech to create a near perfect facsimile of someone saying or doing something that they never said or did? Perhaps if it is just for parody purposes. But if it is meant to amplify a political message built upon a lie, then no, no it is not. Why? Because it skips an important epistemological step whereby the recipient of the message knows it came from a third party and their belief of the message is predicated on their knowledge it came from someone else who may or may not be believable.
So if it is a deepfake the message can appear, credulously, to come directly from a political opponent. If it is just a slanderous lie about that political opponent, it must come from from a third party of which belief is a necessary component in communication.
Society doesn’t imprison you for saying the N word. It’s not socially acceptable, but you won’t face legal repercussions.
The law that was passed is too broad. It blanket bans deep fakes. That’s the issue. Not that I’m really complaining that they do, I don’t like them, but because I do not like it, is not justification. The law doesn’t target political speech, just deepfakes as a whole. Also, political speech is some of the most highly defended when it comes to the first amendment.
Politicians have been lying about each other for longer than deepfakes and will continue to do so.
Bullshit. It doesn’t blanket ban deep fakes:
Subd. 2.Use of deep fake to influence an election; violation. A person who disseminates a deep fake or enters into a contract or other agreement to disseminate a deep fake is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3 if the person knows or reasonably should know that the item being disseminated is a deep fake and dissemination: (1) takes place within 90 days before an election;
(2) is made without the consent of the depicted individual; and
(3) is made with the intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election.
The first amendment doesn’t protect fraudulent speech, which is what deepfakes are.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s true. People lie all the time.
And when people impersonate cops, it’s a crime.
What does that have to do with literally anything lol
There are limits to free speech.
Never did I say there wasn’t. However, the first amendment protects all kinds of false speech, except in some very narrow exceptions. Here’s an interesting interview. it’s at the bottom of your want to read, otherwise, it’s a decent listen.
deleted by creator
Deepfakes being introduced to mainstream would just lead to them proliferating being shared on social media/texts/emails etc… The disclaimers would be cropped out, watermarks would be blurred or removed, and the general public who eats up rage baiting content would be effectively be forcefed even more misinformation in their feeds.
I’m sure there are good ways to prevent this, but the average user/consumer isn’t going to put much effort into disproving what they are seeing. Esppecially if that content fits their narrative and reinforces their beliefs and tribal alignment.