many of the AI laws and regulations that have received bipartisan support across the country simply don’t pass constitutional muster. And there are a lot of them.
related posts
78 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 8 Aug
I'm pretty clear on it.
No rules gonna stop it.
Why?
Rules don't apply on internet.
reply
64 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 8 Aug
Considering there's almost nothing that can be done to stop them, any laws and regulations won't work and will only feed the ever increasing surveillance state.
reply
64 sats \ 12 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 8 Aug
The ACLU was always supposed to fight for rights, regardless of who it pissed off. I'm glad to see them taking a stance based on that, instead of going with popular opinion (noting that I'm not a fan at all of deepfakes, but just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's not free speech).
reply
42 sats \ 11 replies \ @siggy47 OP 8 Aug
The old saying: I may hate what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it.
reply
43 sats \ 10 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Aug
Aren't deep fakes in the category of fraud?
Or is it artistic expression?
First amendment is about political speech/thought
reply
21 sats \ 9 replies \ @siggy47 OP 8 Aug
It depends how the laws are drafted. There are a bunch of them. First amendment is not just about political speech. You're right that deep fakes can constitute fraud. Fraud usually requires the loss of property or surrendering a right. It is fact specific. Celebrities in the public eye would probably have less protections.
reply
43 sats \ 8 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Aug
I keep forgetting about religion!
Freedom of religion
what does that say about me lol
reply
21 sats \ 7 replies \ @siggy47 OP 8 Aug
You're right about religion, but if you read the first amendment, in addition to freedom of religion there is freedom of speech. That freedom is not limited in any way. That freedom is unqualified. Courts have limited free speech over the years, of course, with the most famous being speech that can cause imminent harm, ie yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
reply
43 sats \ 6 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Aug
Doxxing people online is not protected speech
reply
21 sats \ 5 replies \ @siggy47 OP 8 Aug
I don't think they knew that word when they wrote the 1st amendment.
view replies
64 sats \ 10 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Aug
How do you feel about this?
I'm all for it, unless it enters into fraud territory.
reply
60 sats \ 6 replies \ @siggy47 OP 8 Aug
Absolutely. I'm also glad to see the ACLU is getting back to what it does best. I used to respect this organization. Lately, though, their positions have seemed more partisan than principled. I hope this is the start of a trend.
reply
80 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Aug
what about copyrights and trademarks and other forms of intellectual property infringement with deep fakes?
On second thought, we don't need new laws banning deep fakes
Let's see how this plays out
I am going to create a deep fake of a gay wedding cake at Masterpiece Bakery in Colorado
reply
119 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 8 Aug
I don’t believe IP is either morally coherent or practically valuable. It’s just an arbitrary state sponsored monopoly scheme.
Edit: I like your idea at the end. Let’s see how deep these principles are.
reply
41 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 8 Aug
In really hope AI destroys the idea of IP. It's truly a psyop.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 8 Aug
Yes. Good idea
reply
65 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 8 Aug
Agree. They used to defend the rights of Nazi demostrators. If you really value freedom you have to defend the rights of people you do not like.
reply
64 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Aug
I hope so, too.
reply
34 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 8 Aug
Fraud is fraud so that should already be covered right?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Aug
Yeah, but you never know what those weirdos might be defending.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Aug
my thought exactly, I wrote before reading your comment
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 8 Aug
I used to hear it said that the only speech that really needs protection is speech that no one likes.
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Aug
Using Perplexity AI...
The ACLU justifies the constitutional right to create deepfakes based on First Amendment protections of free speech. They argue that once a piece of legal speech exists, such as a deepfake, the government has strict limits on when and why it can be suppressed. This perspective is rooted in the idea that both the right to speak and the right to listen are essential components of free expression. The ACLU contends that many proposed laws to regulate deepfakes do not meet constitutional standards because they could suppress free speech, particularly if they are not narrowly tailored and overreach in their restrictions[1][4].
The ACLU acknowledges the potential harms of deepfakes, such as political misinformation and nonconsensual pornography, but they believe existing laws, like anti-harassment statutes, can address many of these issues without infringing on free speech rights. They support narrowly tailored regulations against specific harms, like voter suppression through misinformation about election details, but maintain that broader restrictions on deepfakes could set a dangerous precedent for government censorship[1][4].
The organization draws parallels to past legal defenses of controversial speech, such as their support for the Westboro Baptist Church's right to protest, to illustrate their commitment to protecting speech rights even when the content is disagreeable. They argue that allowing the government to suppress deepfakes could lead to misuse of such powers to suppress truthful speech, particularly by authoritarian figures[1][4].
Citations:
[1] https://ediscoverytoday.com/2024/07/30/constitutional-right-to-make-deepfakes-the-aclu-says-yes-artificial-intelligence-trends/
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/MediaSynthesis/comments/1eiqw1t/the_aclu_fights_for_your_constitutional_right_to/
[3]
[4] https://www.wired.com/story/aclu-artificial-intelligence-deepfakes-free-speech/
[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1eb15an/the_aclu_fights_for_your_constitutional_right_to/
reply