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.
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.
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.