Did not know that, obviously. Is that state code?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
What Is Free Speech?
- Thread starter Ingomike
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,903
- 113
Yes, Indiana's state code. It's the same pretty much everywhere, at least in the US. Both due to the practicality of making a prosecutor prove a child exists (if the image is made in Botswana, do you have to find and subpoena the child?) and because of the degenerative effect on society as a whole to allow pedophilia to be normalized.
There's already mechanisms to handle issues like this. It's called suing someone.
As far as putting stuff in front of minors, that's already illegal.
I don't see any of this as a new problem, functionally not far off from editing video clips to make someone appear to say the opposite of what they've said. If it results in harm, it'll likely be a successful case.
Free speech or not?
It’s not just Taylor Swift ‘nudes’: Millions of teen girls victimized as classmates turn them into deepfake porn
Francesca Mani, 14, was turned into a vile pornographic nude by boys in her class. Millions of teen girls could be victims too.nypost.com
This is a hyper public individual, the bar for libel or slander in this situation is going to be hard to meet. If you mean Taylor Swift. Now the other individual mentioned there, yes absolutely, they have grounds to sue the pants off the people doing those images, and they also would count as CSAM, so who ever is doing that is looking at being put on a registry and possibly prison time.
Moral of the story, if you don't want people to be able to make AI generated stuff of you, don't be a public person, ala movie star/politician.
What about social media images common folk post?
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,903
- 113
Not my area of expertise, but I think Taylor Swift probably has a better chance of prevailing than many celebrities due to her careful branding and (at least in my perception) purposefully appealing to young girls. Paris Hilton can't really claim damage to her brand by people thinking she poses nude or allows herself to be videotaped during sex acts...but Taylor's brand is the opposite of that.
The real world issue, of course, is practicality of finding the creators, etc. Particularly if they aren't in the US.
I think that's going to be very context dependent. I'm not a lawyer so I'm just theory crafting what I think it would fall under.
At the end of the day if it's done with negative connotations that's going to be a libel or slander case at the very least. I don't know if it would count as identity theft but I have a feeling someone could craft a case to do that.
Either way you can be sued for literally anything someone wants to sue you for and a judge will decide if it has merit. I don't see judges declaring acts like this as free speech since they have the intent of destroying someone's reputation and causing them to lose income or potentially be framed for a crime.
I'd be surprised if social media companies can keep skating by claiming they have no liability for things like this. Especially as it proliferates to more impactful scales.
Social media companies should not be responsible for illegal postings as 230 gave them protections for, what they do wrong is actually censoring anything. They should either be publishers responsible for everything published or immune like the phone company, a conduit for people to publish…
If the people in the two cases you mention keep it to themselves, that's one thing. When it gets shared to millions of people on the internet, that's entirely different.
Yes.
Already is… “In some states, defamation of character can also be a criminal offense, although these types of cases are rarely prosecuted”
“In some states, defamation of character can also be a criminal offense, although these types of cases are rarely prosecuted”
An example of that is, say, online character assassination with an intent to get people to kill themselves. It’s not necessarily the speech that makes the crime, but the intent.
Another example would be filing a false report with the police. That’s not protected speech, and is criminal.
Maybe, maybe not.
I think someone can be libertarian and still think an individual does not have carte blanche natural born rights to create and distribute pornographic images of someone else.
