Creator of Kamala Harris Parody Video Sues California Over Election 'Deepfake' Ban (politico.com) 337
Longtime Slashdot reader SonicSpike shares a report from Politico: The creator of a video that used artificial intelligence to imitate Kamala Harris is suing the state of California after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed laws restricting the use of digitally altered political "deepfakes," alleging First and 14th Amendment violations. Christopher Kohls, who goes by the name "Mr Reagan" on X, has been at the center of a debate over the use of AI-generated material in elections since he posted the video in July, calling it a parody of a Harris campaign ad. It features AI-generated clips mimicking Harris' voice and saying she's the "ultimate diversity hire." The video was shared by X owner Elon Musk without calling it parody and attracted the ire of Newsom, who vowed to ban such content.
The suit (PDF), filed Tuesday in federal court, seeks permanent injunctions against the laws. One of the laws in question, the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act, specifies that it does not apply to satire or parody content. It requires large online platforms to remove or label deceptive, digitally altered media during certain periods before or after an election. Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement that Kohls had already labeled the post as a parody on X. "Requiring them to use the word 'parody' on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform," Gardon said. "It's unclear why this conservative activist is suing California. This new disclosure law for election misinformation isn't any more onerous than laws already passed in other states, including Alabama."
The suit (PDF), filed Tuesday in federal court, seeks permanent injunctions against the laws. One of the laws in question, the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act, specifies that it does not apply to satire or parody content. It requires large online platforms to remove or label deceptive, digitally altered media during certain periods before or after an election. Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement that Kohls had already labeled the post as a parody on X. "Requiring them to use the word 'parody' on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform," Gardon said. "It's unclear why this conservative activist is suing California. This new disclosure law for election misinformation isn't any more onerous than laws already passed in other states, including Alabama."
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
That's constitutionally-protected speech.
That's for the courts.
There's few limits on what you say in term of political speech, but creating faked content showing others saying things they didn't say might be crossing the line.
Nobody is confused that Alec Baldwin's "Trump" on SNL is the real deal, so they can say anything. But if they AI deep faked it so you couldn't hear or see that it wasn't trump, and then showed it out of context -- yeah, I don't think that's going to be ok. And i don't think "it was parody" is much of a defense either.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"It was parody" is the ultimate defense actually.
To this day, people still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. It was actually Tina Fey who said that.
I'm sure you don't actually think Kamala Harris would call herself a "Deepstate Puppet". You're not one of the crazies that thinks Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house right ?
Re: (Score:2)
But that was not a computer generated deep fake, but indeed a parody.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
"It was parody" is the ultimate defense actually.
Actually it's not the ultimate defense. You can't declare something a parody unilaterally. It needs to be clear that something is a parody. The issue with deep fakes vs what the parent talked about being a dressed up Alec Baldwin, is that the latter is obviously a parody while the former may be misunderstood to be real. It doesn't matter what you the creator intend, it matters what other people view something as.
"It was parody" is up to the judge to decide.
To this day, people still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. It was actually Tina Fey who said that.
A reasonable person test applies. The fact that some people can't tell Tina Fey apart from Sarah Palin isn't reasonable. However if you deep fake Sarah Palin then it would be reasonable if it was well done, and that would no longer result in protection of "parody". Remember a parody is not wholesale copying, it's an Imitation of style with exaggeration for comic effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember a parody is not wholesale copying, it's an Imitation of style with exaggeration for comic effect.
..which parody is an easy sell, when you’re not a joke of a leader.
The parody, is obvious. The actual joke, is the society the parody is parroting a bit too accurately. Feelings got hurt, and we know what happens after that. “Racist” and “sexist” labels start flying. Just like the video stated.
The real problem, is reality being the parody.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
"It was parody" is the ultimate defense actually.
To this day, people still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. It was actually Tina Fey who said that.
I'm sure you don't actually think Kamala Harris would call herself a "Deepstate Puppet". You're not one of the crazies that thinks Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house right ?
I want to know what planet you've been living on the last twenty years where thinking Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her porch or that Al Gore said he invented the internet rises to the level of crazy.
The President of the United States of America said we should check up on injecting bleach, that actually happened. Now we're spreading stories about migrants eating pets.
Parody doesn't exist anymore, we're living in The Onion now. So no, parody is not the ultimate defense. Anyone on either side of the aisle will tell you, they don't know what's real anymore, they've stopped listening or reading the news, it's all rumors on Facebook and YouTube now. People are gullible and afraid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless, it changes from parody to impersonation if you slice it into a few second long chunks. This is the reverse of normal parodies, where with less context you wouldn't even know who the satirist is imitating.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, if there is one potential voter that might believe the video, then it is no longer just parody.
A threshold that low is a great way to make parody illegal. One can find an idiot to misinterpret pretty much anything in this world while on the other hand there are deffinitly people who will falsely claim to be mislead because they don't like a possible message behind the parody.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, then this passes muster....I mean, who really thinks the even word salad Kamala would out herself as a diversity hire, and Biden as a puppet?
While it IS a bit too close to the actual t
Re: (Score:2)
There's few limits on what you say in term of political speech, but creating faked content showing others saying things they didn't say might be crossing the line.
Cough, Campari Interview [boingboing.net], cough. The Supreme Court would like to have a word with you [wikipedia.org] there.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Your second link notes the Hustler parody ad in the case was ...:
>marked as a parody that was "not to be taken seriously".
Are all deep fakes as clearly marked? If not, that case hardly seems relevant.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Althoug the parody marking helped in the libel case against Hustler, SCOTUS didn't write that the decision was because of that. The decision clearly protected parody as a form of speech and its test was that if a reasonable person didn't believe the statements to be true, then it was protected speech. They didn't say "as long as the piece clarifies that it is a parody."
I watched the video. Would some people believe it? I guess so. Would most? I don't think so. She's so egregious in what she says that no reasonable person would believe it was real, especially in the day and age when we're all becoming more aware of the capabilities of AI, not to mention technologies that have been used in the film industry for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Are all deep fakes as clearly marked? If not, that case hardly seems relevant.
Interestingly they are now. The video title itself now has PARODY in it in all caps. It didn't on release. It seems like someone is trying to retrospectively undo something they may themselves realise they did wrong.
That said the video ended with a typical approval messages as political ads do, in this case from "Professor Suggon Deeznuts". That would IMO (and I'm not the judge) make it an obvious parody. However... something could be said about that being at the very end of a video.
Re: (Score:3)
And i don't think "it was parody" is much of a defense either.
Actually, parody is a strong defense if a "reasonable person" would recognize it as parody.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Actually, parody is a strong defense if a "reasonable person" would recognize it as parody."
Agreed. My only issue is that the video probably should have been clearly labeled as a parody inside the video, or that it contains generated (AI) content (if it did). In this particular case, you would have to be pretty stupid to not recognize that video as parody. But why tempt fate?
Re: (Score:2)
And i don't think "it was parody" is much of a defense either.
Actually, parody is a strong defense if a "reasonable person" would recognize it as parody.
Hang on. My popcorn is almost done. Then we can talk about the definition of “reasonable”. In the era of “woman” being undefined as if it were an out-of-bounds math problem. This should be hilarious trying to find a defense.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the crux of it right there. If you are using "AI deepfakery" to make it look and sound like its actually the person then its correspondingly less recognizable as parody.
You don't need deepfakes to make parodies, and if anything parody is served better without them.
Re: Good (Score:2)
It's fairly typical of Gavin "do as I say not as I do"som.
https://www.newsweek.com/gavin... [newsweek.com]
https://people.com/politics/ga... [people.com]
https://calmatters.org/comment... [calmatters.org]
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the argument against that?
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
What is the argument against that?
A simpler solution is to require the politicians to put the words "Not Parody" on all their ads.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not up to the original to tell people they aren't a fake. I hate politicians as much as the next guy, but that is an arse backwards idea even when you do consider political ads to be weird.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the argument against that?
A simpler solution is to require the politicians to put the words "Not Parody" on all their ads.
Now that I could get behind!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's constitutionally-protected speech. It's irrelevant whatever Mr. Newsom thinks of it.
Once again you are either trolling, trying to be sarcastic or you really are dumb enough to believe that. Assuming the third option because there's a lot of people these days who fit that description, It's been my experience that people who argue your way in cases like this and approve of this sort of activity do so because (A) they see an immediate short term advantage in it for their own faction and (B) they can't even think one step ahead. You do realize that if that interpretation prevails it means that
Re: (Score:2)
That's constitutionally-protected speech. It's irrelevant whatever Mr. Newsom thinks of it.
As long as the content identifies itself as parody, I -- a dyed-in-the-wool leftist -- fully agree. Gavin Newsom also agrees with you. As do the laws in question (as referenced in the blurblet above). However, as cited here, the video was able to be posted by Elon Musk "without calling it parody." If the inference that one draws from that -- namely, that there was no disclaimer on the video identifying it as a deepfake -- then that implies responsibility for both Musk and the content creator. No disclaimer/
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
That's constitutionally-protected speech. It's irrelevant whatever Mr. Newsom thinks of it.
That's where it gets a bit tricky. Speech is, indeed, constitutionally protected. However, what is fraud, if not speech? What is conspiracy, if not speech? For example, saying "I will pay $54.20 per share for your company's stock to buy out the entire company and take it private." is free speech. However, if you say it in the right circumstances (as in, actual negotiations on buying the company), it turns out that turning around and saying "just kidding" is fraud. The courts can force you to either follow through, or face civil and potentially criminal charges. Because speech, even free speech, carries meaning and that meaning is considered very important in certain contexts. The same goes for, "we should do a drive-by and kill Bob!". That's free speech. It could just be a joke too. People say things like that all the time without being serious, but then sometimes they are perfectly serious. Circumstances usually help illuminate that. For example, if you say that, then you or one of the people you said it to takes steps towards killing Bob in a drive-by, or actually does it, then you've taken part in an illegal conspiracy just through your free speech.
The same goes with creating a fake, AI or not, of someone else saying something they never said. In and of itself it is free speech. If you release it with the intention of making it look like the person actually said or did what is in the video though, then you run into some problems. Those can range from slander/libel all the way to outright fraud. You can't, for an extreme (but real) example, create a deepfake of a company CEO demanding a massive funds transfer to you and use it to try to trick a company into making that funds transfer. That's serious criminal fraud.
So, it's a matter of circumstance. The circumstances in this case being an election. Out of necessity, all sorts of special rules already apply to political speech and for pretty much exactly the same reasons. That is to say, certain kinds of speech in a political context qualify as libel and fraud. Especially in the context of political fundraising. For example, if you post an AI-generated video of a political candidate butchering and eating kittens and you're implying that, if they win, all kittens everywhere will be butchered and eaten and you are also soliciting donations to beat them, that can certainly qualify as a form of fraud. You can make the "no-one would ever believe it argument" and that holds sometimes, but reality demonstrates that there's a pretty large portion of the population on whom these things often do work.
So, in the end, there are limitations on free speech. Those limitations may sometimes be unreasonable, but they often are actually reasonable within defined contexts.
Re: (Score:3)
Just going to leave this here....
https://californiaglobe.com/fr... [californiaglobe.com]
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
People mock Newsom, but between his gun safety push, making California the safest state in the US, without worry about kids starting down the muzzle of an assault weapon, and the fact that California is the most prosperous US state, he is doing a pretty good job in running that state. What laws are made in California eventually get passed everywhere in the US, like CARB emissions. Like breathing without pollution? Thank California and Newsom.
Newsom got rid of the weapons, and new there are no mass shootings in schools there. Gee whiz, how can that happen? No assault weapons, no dead kids. Amazing, isn't it?
California assault weapons ban passed in 1989. Slightly predating Newsom. Wikipedia lists 13 school shoots in California since that ban was passed. In many of those the shooter used a semi automatic rifle. Three of them occurred after Newsom become governor.
Thank Newsom for CARB? Would you believe that Reagan was the CA governor that signed the act that established that agency in 1967? Skimming through the CARB wiki entry, the only item called out since Newsom became governor was the dedication of their new 402k square foot headquarters.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. For presenting the simple facts of the matter. If California was actually doing well, both people and companies wouldn’t be leaving in droves. California would have never had to even consider an insane exit tax.
Re: (Score:2)
People mock Newsom, but between his gun safety push, making California the safest state in the US, without worry about kids starting down the muzzle of an assault weapon, and the fact that California is the most prosperous US state, he is doing a pretty good job in running that state. What laws are made in California eventually get passed everywhere in the US, like CARB emissions. Like breathing without pollution? Thank California and Newsom.
Newsom got rid of the weapons, and new there are no mass shootings in schools there. Gee whiz, how can that happen? No assault weapons, no dead kids. Amazing, isn't it?
For every person who upvoted this, prove it.
You can’t find this much bullshit at a dozen rodeos.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're thinking of the marine layer [wikipedia.org], which is not the same thing as smog though mixed together they can be virtually indistinguishable.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Aren't these in two separate states? Which can have different laws? You know state rights and all that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
She faced social and employment problems because of it. There is nothing illegal displaying a dead president in effigy. It is, however, very unwise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Was she charged with anything federally...?
Re: (Score:3)
No, it fell under the classification of a threat of violence to the president
No, it did not.
which is also absolutely illegal and not protected free speech.
This is correct, but that doesn't really matter, because that isn't what she did.
She got a visit from the feds.
If you do anything associated with a President and death, you get investigated by the Secret Service. That's their job. That does not mean you have committed a crime (broken the law).
Are you seriously so fucking stupid that you believe the shit you're saying, or are you just desperately trying to support a sinking argument?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then there is no hypocrisy in calling out the fact that Democrats are quick to legislate against criticism of them.
You motherfucking fascist pigs throw a shit-fit if someone criticizes or makes fun of your 'fearless leader' shit-diaper Trump. Every accusation is an admission of guilt with you shitstains isn't it? Go emigrate to Russia, asshole. Hope you get your ass shot off in Ukraine.
Ah, the party of love and fucking tolerance. Gotta love it when they champion hypocrisy with blind ignorance.
Tell me how good Kamala is without using the word “Trump”. Let’s get a bead on that TDS infection of yours.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Tell me how good Kamala is without using the word “Trump”. Let’s get a bead on that TDS infection of yours.
Hey, I'm sure she's held some sort of job ... some kind of record of public service we could look at.
Why those MAGA meanies even like to claim that she was vice president at some time or other!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump is the furthest thing from a "cool cucumber" - he routinely loses his shit over even mild criticism or even when no criticism is given.
Recent example was his post on Truth Social - "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT".
Why? Her post did NOT say "don't vote for Trump, vote for Kamala"
What it DID say was (paraphrasing) "I did my research, here's who I'm voting for, here's why, NOW GO DO YOURS, register & VOTE"
What exactly about that would cause a "cool cucumber" to reflexively fill his golden diaper?
Satire (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It was obviously satire; here's the video [x.com]—judge for yourself.
Well yeah, it's nearly 2 friggin' minutes long for one thing. These days, real ads try to get to their point before you can smash that "skip ad" link.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Hilarious! But what was fake about it? I don't get it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but there's a spectrum to how obvious something is. This is abused by ad companies to trick some of the dumber customers, and then in court they argue that the misleading ad is legal because a reasonable person would know they're despicable liars. I expect a similar thing will happen with AI-generated videos. I don't think our world is ready for idiots being fully convinced by a fake video that matches their prejudices, while declaring any video that they dislike an obvious fake.
On a related note, some
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think our world is ready for idiots being fully convinced by a fake video that matches their prejudices, while declaring any video that they dislike an obvious fake.
If we had to reduce ourselves to the least common denominator, society as a whole would be doomed. The right way is going up, not bringing things down.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the usual way to deal with the least common denominator is to either get them the help they need, or put them in a box where they can't cause too much damage, and possibly take some sort of precautions against them. For example, a few of the lowest common denominator types (either mentally unstable, or political) killed off enough presidents we decided to give them bodyguards, which seems like a good idea considering the few dozen attempts to kill Obama.
Re:Satire (Score:4, Interesting)
you say satire... I say risky... Considering the critical thinking levels of most American's... you can't trust that most will know it's satire, and there is likely a good proportion of the populace that will argue with you that it's real, and you saying it's satire is part of the deep state agenda to keep the truth hidden.
Just look at history and how many articles from The Onion were picked up as legit news by ACTUAL news reporting agencies, let alone the number of random people that took the parody and satire as factual. These are the people that ate tide pods, made cheque fraud into a trend... and brought us the popped polo collars, plus flat earth, lizard people, etc...
Unless there is a massive banner in the video saying PARODY... It will be abused... can you afford to have even more misinformation in politics.
I know a good chunk of Americans are smart enough and don't fall under this, but the fact that there is enough that do and can sway an election is enough of a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
The potential for abuse is the strongest argument here. It can be edited down to just her saying that, and any warning labels removed.
One way to handle this is to set the bar as if a "reasonable person" might be mislead. Similar to things like decency laws, where what is obscene comes down to what a supposedly representative jury decides.
Unfortunately it doesn't help with the dumbest in society, but it's legally sound and well tested against the constitution.
Re: Satire (Score:2)
Sorry, but as someone with extremely coarse hair, I think those 5-blade razors are a godsend. I wouldn't use anything else anymore if given a choice. The 3 blade ones are painful to use by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
you don't find the 5 blade getting jammed up super quick?
i always had issues with anything more than 3...
But while we're at it- nothing beats the Spishak razor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Satire (Score:2)
No, I really like Fusion power, no issues with it.
Thanks for the chuckle, that was a nice link.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link, I was looking for it. My judgement is that I would ban it too. But I am an European and we judge ads differently here compared with the US, so there might be some bias.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Parody is too subtle for people like MAGA to determine
Hell of a claim considering the parody in question is making fun of Democrats, was likely created by “MAGA”, using actual liberal defense tactics like “racist” and “sexist”.
The parody in question was too subtle, because it was a bit too believable. Maybe pick less shitty leaders, and the mockery will once again be considered proper parody and comedy.
their leaders promote lies as fact e.g. people eating pets etc in Springfield
Fact: Humans who eat animals others consider as “pets”, are in America. Fact: You would be lying to yourself
Parody and voter intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't tell the difference between that sort of blatant parody video and real video without a #parody tag on it then you really shouldn't be voting.
This is just the first step to further erosion of the 1a. They went straight for "disinformation" as determined by politicians and failed badly so they pulled back and will just get there slower.
In the US, we are citizens, not subjects and those politicians work for us, If a citizen wants to brutally mock a politician, (even using "AI"... gasp!) they have the right to do so. The 1a does not say, "you can say whatever you want but you have to label it the way the government says".
The other side of this coin is, "let's file criminal charges against people who say Trump is Hitler because they're inciting violence". I'm cool with people saying Trump is Hitler. It's dumb but sure whatever, go for it. I'm also ok with some random mocking Kamala word salad with a parody video.
The 1a requires people to have a brain and thick skin. It's not for thin skinned idiots. We should not reduce our rights to serve the dumbest and thinnest skinned people in our country.
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
Progressives are concerned they might think Harris really said she is the ultimate diversity hire and deep state puppet if stuff like this is legal. When you look at the shit Animoji and rsilvergun say, I think this might be a credible statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy so far down the rabbit hole he will never see the light of day again...
It's interesting how all this fake news is coming from the Republican side. Everything from eating pets to Kamala saying she is a DEI hire. People have already edited videos misleadingly to try to support the pet eating stuff, and that recent movie "Am I Racist" is just a series of misleadingly edited interviews with people who never agreed to be in it.
What is the equivalent from the Democrat side? I'm no fan of Kamala and t
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:2)
Oh no Biden did way worse than that. He specifically stated that he would only choose a black female justice nominee. Even if you really wanted to do that, why the hell would you just go and say it? That eliminates all doubt about the justice not being there on account of being the most qualified, rather she's there because she filled in the right diversity checkboxes, and now everybody knows it.
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)ll just leave this here. LOS ANGELES, Oct. 14, 1980 -- Ronald Reagan, striving to refute charges that he is insensitive to women's rights, said today he would name a woman to "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration."
Its only September in an election year. Looking at some of the insanity tossed around as campaign promises already, this seems quite tame by comparison.
Hell, back then at least a woman nominee for SCOTUS could actually tell you what a “woman” is.
Re: (Score:2)
If there were indeed, one unquestionable super candidate (I'd love to see the metric for this), then you'd be right.
But the fact is- that simply isn't so.
So if you've go 2 people that, within reasonable estimation, have equal capacity- choosing someone cased on a diversity criteria does not imply that they were somehow not the most qualified.
Note: I am not saying that is, or isn't the case.
But I will say that Trump has put some of the flat-out stup
Re: (Score:2)
..some people really think that) and then when you point out that someone is only there because they are a DEI hire, they yell at you for being racist for noticing the thing they did.
Here, is the best response I can think of when dealing with those wanting to call you “racist” on this:
Unqualified, is not a race.
Incompetent, is not a gender.
Tell them to drop the racist, sexist arguments already. Otherwise we can just lobby for child labor to return again, and I’ll hire the actual unqualified incompetent toddler instead of the one pretending to be one while arrogantly demanding an adult salary.
Re: (Score:3)
Voting is not an intellectual challenge and people who think it is shouldn't be voting.
Free speech is a human right recognized and protected by the first amendment. I don't think the right of free speech includes the right to deceive people whether deliberately or not. I don't think requiring someone to label their parody as parody threatens our liberty. Whether it violates the first amendment is entirely up to the corporate lawyers on the supreme court.
The real threat to liberty is that a small number of
Re:Parody and voter intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't tell the difference between that sort of blatant parody video and real video without a #parody tag on it then you really shouldn't be voting.
You missed the point.
The problem is that people are pushing disinformation under the guise of parody. That ad with the fake Kamala quotes for instance, clearly it's anti-Harris. But it's done in the style of an ad playing someone's actual statements against them and it actually does have a bunch of (what I assume are real) clips of her speaking later. People sometimes say dumb things, I could forgive a lot of folks for thinking those quotes were real.
The other side of this coin is, "let's file criminal charges against people who say Trump is Hitler because they're inciting violence". I'm cool with people saying Trump is Hitler. It's dumb but sure whatever, go for it.
No it isn't, those are completely different coins.
The Harris deepfakes are explicit attempts at deception. The "people who say Trump is Hitler" is straight up honest political speech.
I'm also ok with some random mocking Kamala word salad with a parody video.
As am I, heck, I don't even complain when Trump spends entire rallies serving out bowls of word salad.
But there are exceptions to the US 1A and deepfakes designed to mislead voters can certainly qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
The Harris deepfakes are explicit attempts at deception.
For the record, I'll be voting for Kamala. But what you call "deception", I call "funny".
But there are exceptions to the US 1A and deepfakes designed to mislead voters can certainly qualify.
Not if they are clearly parody, which this would fall under. Most people would not believe she'd call Joe senile. Most people would not believe that she would say we have an alliance with the Republic of North Korea. What's next? People watch the movie The Interview and think it was a documentary?
Re: (Score:3)
However, it was enough to make me open my eyes and imagine a world where more insidious and less-obviously fake ads proliferate out of control, and it looks pretty fucking bad to me.
That being said, I have no fucking idea what one does about it. There are obvious 1st amendment issues, but at the same time, it's obvious these can actually get closer to libel. Feels like it's a cat's-out-of-the-barn thing, and I think society will
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably a good thing he's not in Thailand or anywhere else. You must not be familiar with the laws in the U.S. and also forgetting that you're just an average person, while Kamala is public figure. Public figures don't enjoy the same protections private citizens do from many things, including deepfakes that are done with the purpose of parody. They are protected from libel, but as long as a reasonable person would think that the deepfake is a parody, then all is okay.
And then there's satire, like W [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The "people who say Trump is Hitler" is straight up honest political speech.
plus if they banned those, Trump would have to find a new running mate!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're either too fucking stupid to understand basic English, or you're just talking shit.
In contrast, have you ever read a transcript of Trump speaking? lol
Come on dude- that fucker is flat out in the bottom quartile in terms of intelligence.
Re:Parody and voter intelligence (Score:4, Informative)
Under “word salad”, there’s just a picture of Kamala now. Anyone claiming that woman comes off as coherent and competent, is as clueless as she is. Her word salads are so bad we question her sobriety.
And yet, her unprompted performance at the debate polled spectacular vs her opponent.
Your royal "we" here is functionally useless, since you've outed yourself as a rabid little shit who will say and do anything to smear her.
Your politics-infected-brain is beyond saving.
Try again. This time, take Trump out of your mouth along with your foot and see if you can string together a competent response with examples of her brilliance.
Why would I have to do that? I never asserted her brilliance.
Do you usually try to save losing arguments with strawmen? I guess it probably works when you're trying to assert control over your family. Here in the real world though, you're going to find people aren't afraid of you, and are plenty willing to laugh in your face when you do stupid shit like that.
Lord knows she can’t without a teleprompter and earpiece, speaking to her seventh generation of staff, because the last six generations couldn’t handle all that genius and talent.
And yet, the debate had no teleprompter.
Why are we talking about her staff? I never mentioned how good of an employer she was. Your desperation to soothe the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing is flat out pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't tell the difference between that sort of blatant parody video and real video without a #parody tag on it then you really shouldn't be voting.
Then some 90% of your population would not be allowed to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
The other side of this coin is, "let's file criminal charges against people who say Trump is Hitler because they're inciting violence". I'm cool with people saying Trump is Hitler. It's dumb but sure whatever, go for it.
Is totally legit to compare any wannabe dictator to the most famous dictator of our times.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't tell the difference between that sort of blatant parody video and real video without a #parody tag on it then you really shouldn't be voting.
The problem, isn’t the parody.
The problem, and why Democrats are quite pissed, is because it’s a bit too accurate. Literally referencing actual “defense” tactics abused by liberals. Like calling someone “sexiest” or “racist” when questioning the competency of the lowest-rated VP in history.
Again the problem isn’t parody or comedy. It’s the joke of a person were calling “qualified”.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump voters believe all sorts of lies, so they would be the type to fall for it. as intended.
"Trump voters", huh... So, what are they going to do, press harder on the ballot when they go vote for Trump?
This sort of content was not intended for anyone on the fence. It's clearly just circle-jerk material for the MAGA hat crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
It's clearly just circle-jerk material for the MAGA hat crowd.
Sure, as is the severed head stuff, and the "half the country is raciiiist!" type of stuff for the left.
Yet strangely, only one side's stuff gets banned.
Re: (Score:2)
But you are right, those people shouldn't be voting.
Everyone should be voting. Voting is the only way to know what people really think. Voting needs to be done in booths where vote manipulation is not possible. Voting needs both a digital and hand counted.
Uneducated votes, are still uneducated votes. Competency, isn’t created by volume. Otherwise 81 million Biden voters would have turned him into Superman instead of The Joke.
People also need to learn you get what you vote for. All the partisan divisive election bullshit-speak in the next 60 days won’t mean a damn thing if you’re still winning like Charlie Sheen on a tiger blood bender under Bidenomics. A hungry child won’t care who won or lost either. They just want something to
Forgery != Parody (Score:5, Insightful)
Subject says it all. These deepfakes are closer to impersonating a police officer, or forging documents/money than they are to parody and satire.
Re: (Score:2)
Subject says it all. These deepfakes are closer to impersonating a police officer, or forging documents/money than they are to parody and satire.
The fact that Kamala is so bad in real life, IS the entire reason people don’t see this as painfully obvious parody.
“I may not know the first thing about running the country, but remember..that’s a good thing.” Are you fucking kidding me? People actually believe she said that? How bad do you have to be in real life to believe that shit?
And the mockery in the video, isn’t even fake. It’s literally describing actual defense tactics being abused today. Leftist society i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got downvoted because I dared say Democrats who think this is forgery arenâ(TM)t rational and this site is infested with them.
If you think this is bad, try to slog through any politically-polarizing article on arstechnica.com.
Re: (Score:2)
He's right though, parody existed long before deepfakes. And if you impersonate a police officer, no matter how obvious your actions make it that you're doing a parody, you'll go to jail. That is, if you have the clothing, ID, and a mask shaped like their face. Which are entirely unnecessary for a parody.
Allow me to bring the Babylon Bee to this party (Score:2)
- California Police Raid Seizes Over 2,000 Memes [babylonbee.com]
- Governor Abbott Declares Texas Sanctuary State For Memers [babylonbee.com]
- BREAKING: The Babylon Bee has obtained this exclusive, official, 100% real Gavin Newsom election ad. [x.com]
Here's the video (Score:2)
https://x.com/andre_nuta/statu... [x.com]
Newsome is Trump's mirror universe twin (Score:2)
Just listen to the two of them talk at length about anything on camera. Same mannerisms, same verbal tics, same exaggerations. Apparently the two of them actually hit it off back in '18 when Trump went out there to tour the wildfire damage, and they swore eachother to secrecy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that Trump is a barely literate moron who has not even the tiniest commitment to maintaining a democratic government. I agree with you about similarities, though. Both men are monumentally corrupt, and both have blood on their hands due to their penchant for prioritizing donors over voters.
Why it isn't right... (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to do a parody? Use real actors or make sure the deepfake isn't all that deep and not a good fake.
It's not complicated, and if you have an issue with that it isn't because you're a hero fighting for free speech, it's because you're fighting for the opportunity to deceive the easily led.
Re: (Score:2)
Use real actors or make sure the deepfake isn't all that deep and not a good fake.
Having watched it, I think they absolutely nailed the "not good" part. If somebody watches it and truly believes it's a legitimate campaign ad, that says more about the sorry state of our education system than anything else.
Re: Why it isn't right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why she isn’t right. (Score:2)
You want to do a parody? Use real actors or make sure the deepfake isn't all that deep and not a good fake.
It's not complicated, and if you have an issue with that it isn't because you're a hero fighting for free speech, it's because you're fighting for the opportunity to deceive the easily led.
You want to do parody and not have The People fall for it so easily? Stop electing a joke of a leader. It’s not complicated.
Kamala is pissed because she’s so bad in real life that parody is that believable. Says a lot more about the person being mocked, than the mocking technology. If she was competent, parody would be painfully obvious and accepted. Like comedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone please tell me why this is modded as "Insightful", it's just bog-standard comment griping: "When you did the thing, you didn't do it the way I would have done it, so you're wrong."
Where is it written that parody has to use "real actors", not be "too deep", and a "good fake"? None of those things are required. All that is required of parody is that it pokes fun at its subject. Whether you use AI or not is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to do a parody? Use real actors or make sure the deepfake isn't all that deep and not a good fake.
After all, that still works - a bunch of fools still believe the claim that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.
My governor, Gavin Newsom, is an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
This case was effectively heard in 1988. The person being parodied was a public figure, the parody was intentionally hurtful and dishonest, basically the only difference was superfluous - there was no AI back then. The case involved Larry Flynt and his Hustler magazine doing a parody of TV preacher and leader of the organization called "Moral Majority" Jerry Falwell. Falwell originally won his case, overcoming the argument that he was a public figure by showing actual intentional infliction of distress (Larry Flynt made no secret of his desire to harm Falwell). The case was eventually overturned by the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision when it handed a victory to Flynt, protecting parody of public figures even when actual malice was shown.
When somebody runs afoul of Newsom's newest folly, and after they go broke fighting the case in the courts, Newsom and the idiots of the California legislature will lose this one - The Supreme Court won't be fooled into thinking this is totally new and different just because somebody used AI, instead of their own manual skills, to create the parody. In the end, it's still just a parody of a public figure that the reader/viewer is left to assess, and the public is assumed to be able to figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
From a legal perspective, I agree with your assessment. If the argument is "sure, you can make a parody -- provided you don't make it this way", then it's hard to imagine that not being tossed out, maybe even on its face.
Babylon Bee (Score:2, Interesting)
The Babylon Bee is giving Newsom the finger as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Utter the word “cisgender” on Twitter and you’ll get account restrictions. https://www.advocate.com/news/... [advocate.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Utter the word “cisgender” on Twitter and you’ll get account restrictions. https://www.advocate.com/news/... [advocate.com]
According to your article, X merely gives a warning that the term may be considered a slur, which it often is when (ab)used in online discourse and far away from any valid clinical use. They don’t even prevent you from posting it.
Sorry, but given how the term is more abused than used, there’s nothing wrong with the X policy. At all. I really don’t care if it accurately identifies people being slur-slinging shitheads. Behave better. It’s that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Should doxxing be protected speech?
Re: (Score:3)
followed by an epic response from Elon
I'm starting to believe the real goal behind Neuralink is ultimately to fix whatever has prevented Elon Musk's brain from maturing past the point of a typical 13-year-old's.
Re: (Score:2)
followed by an epic response from Elon
I'm starting to believe the real goal behind Neuralink is ultimately to fix whatever has prevented Elon Musk's brain from maturing past the point of a typical 13-year-old's.
There is no question the man is a technical genius.
There is also no question that when communicating to butt-hurt liberal toddler minds, one has to dumb things down. A lot.
Elon likes to have fun. Something liberals forgot how to do on their divine path to becoming One with Victimhood.