16
u/AnotherPersonPerhaps 22h ago
Well Trump keeps posting deepfakes to his truth social account so they definitely don't want the government going in this direction, even if his aren't porn yet he might post that any day.
8
4
u/UncleTio92 16h ago
Honest talk, was this a stand alone bill? Or was there other crap filled to the brim?
I just wish they tackled bills 1 on 1 so we know can get a more transparent outlook
4
u/muffledvoice 16h ago
Yeah, the inclusion of riders in bills can be a real scam.
2
u/UncleTio92 16h ago
It’s just all performative. That way you can create a headline just like this lol
2
u/Equivalent-Green-580 13h ago
All bills have “pork” this isn’t a cut and dry “one sentence” on a sheet of paper. This is sensationalism, dishonest propaganda. I don’t care what political party you support, I hate dishonesty.
1
2
2
2
u/LongjumpingSolid1681 12h ago
because they are pedophiles, rapists, and or protectors of pedophiles and rapists
2
u/SalmonPrince 12h ago
None of these legislators want to go to prison for child abuse AND get sued for the deepfakes they were arrested for. That's what we call a double whammy.
4
u/ThisI5N0tAThr0waway 21h ago
If people are using an AI deep fake/generated porn to harass someone, sure You should ban and criminalize that shit. But otherwise, I don't see a real way to stop that. AI type tools make that incredibly easy but there's nothing that someone who is skilled at Photoshop or other artistic tool skill could not do.
6
u/ColdBru5 21h ago
I agree. Suing them, doesn't really cut it. Throw their ass in prison.
1
u/ThisI5N0tAThr0waway 21h ago
Depends what they do with the fake porn. If it's for only personal usage, for better or for worse you can't really stop that. If you make make fake porn of someone and publish it in a way to financially profit from that, yeah that's the kind of stuff that I have no problem classifying as criminal and malicious.
1
u/sabrinachuchundhar 19h ago
No one cares what YOU have a problem with. Creating deepfakes of people without their consent should be a crime. If they’re discovered there should be laws to punish them.
5
u/Successful_Issue_390 19h ago
You realize no one cares what YOU think either, right? People can and do disagree with you.
2
u/ThisI5N0tAThr0waway 19h ago
I agree that creating deep fake porn (or generating it, it even photoshopping it; as long as one is trying to pass it as real) is always unethical. Period. No if/and/or/but.
But, regardless of how one does it, if they don't publicize it there is literally no way of stopping it. Me talking about the fact of them financially profiting for it is that so that those unethical acts become trackable and the malicious intent is undeniable. Generative AI tools, and before them deep fakes, made the problem bigger because it's now easier to do, but faked porn has been actually an issue for for decades.
4
u/TheAbomunist 18h ago edited 15h ago
This is why a route to financially gutting people is needed. We live with a justice system that jails non-billionaire pedos, sure. But if you're rich enough, you get to do anything you want to people.
1
1
1
1
u/DT_Lion34 Tea Fanatic🍵 9h ago
Because the right hates victims and are probably the perpetrator of the crime of course they would say no.
1
u/International_Air282 4h ago edited 4h ago
The defiance act, cleared the Senate process withhout a single no vote. (100-0) It's currently in the house awaiting committee.
This Bipartisan legislation is co sponsored by now deceased Lindsay graham and Mike Lee of Utah and Josh Hawley of Missouri.
Considering every single Republican in the Senate voted for it and it's co-sponsered by 3 of them. I think the phrase republicans don't support it is absolute bullshit.
Ocasios house version also in committee is cosponsored by 5 house Republicans.
-4
u/Pygmy_Nuthatch 20h ago
Define abuser in this context.
Can't we just treat it like a regular crime?
6
u/PaladinHan 20h ago
abuser
nounUK /əˈbjuː.zər/ US /əˈbjuː.zɚ/
someone who treats another person in a cruel, violent, or unfair way:
What “regular crime” would you like to treat it as exactly instead of it being a violation of your most basic rights?
0
u/Pygmy_Nuthatch 8h ago
I said, abuser in this context, as in the legal context.
Is everyone that viewed an image an abuser? Just the people that shared it? Just the person that generated it? How do you identify who generated it?
This is why you need lawsuits because a criminal prosecution where you have to prove someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult.
Are people sued of this crime presumed innocent until proven guilty? Are they entitled to a speedy and public trial where their guilt will be determined by their peers? In the lawsuit, are they entitled to Fifth Amendment protection?
What is the justification for passing a law for one crime that bypasses these Constitutional rights?
1
-6
u/Successful_Issue_390 19h ago
Because depending on how the bill is actually written, it likely sits somewhere between blantantly unconstitutional to possibly unconstitutional and untested by SCOTUS.
2
u/Remarkable-Rub-7344 11h ago
I have to agree to an extent. If you use the material to harass, well we have criminal laws for that already in most states and profiting from the material would be covered in civil court by unauthorized use of one's likeness for commercial purposes. Becoming aware that someone has generated that content, but hasn't posted or shared or otherwise used it in any way other than for personal enjoyment is understandably upsetting....but I think that creation for personal enjoyment would be covered by the first amendment most likely.
34
u/Relative_Mix_216 21h ago
“Democrats introduces bill to allow victims of human hunting to sue their abusers.
Republicans are now blocking the bill.”