Taylor Swift deepfake pornography sparks renewed calls for US legislation...

[Ben]

Curious on thoughts, opinions...

Taylor Swift deepfake pornography sparks renewed calls for US legislation: Taylor Swift deepfake pornography sparks renewed calls for US legislation | Taylor Swift | The Guardian

[Stavros]

I don't have a view on Taylor Swift as I know next to nothing about her, other than she is in the news a lot. And I believe there have been some deepfake images of Trump and I daresay mischief making has better tools today than in the past to deceive people. In the case of politicians, I would rather they be judged on their politics than anything else, and it is not as if we need fake images of Trump.

Is it a case of the technology being hard or difficult for the law to control?

One can argue about copyright and intellectual property issues in law -should Ben be allowed to choose as an Avatar the image of someone else without their consent? Who owns that image?- but can the law be framed with fairness if the technological means to defy or ignore it exists universally?

We are back to State Control of the media, and all the risks that arise, even if it deals with images many if not most people disapprove of.

[Ben]

[Stavros]

So Ben, instead of posting some YouTube thing, why not give us your thoughts and opinions? And no, I haven't clicked on it and don't intend to.

[filghy2]

The key legal question is whether this is protected by the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court has held previously that sexual parodies of public figures could be protected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustle...ine_v._Falwell

However, the key argument in that decision is that it was clearly parody and no reasonable person would think it was real. It's not clear that would apply in this case.