this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
667 points (95.9% liked)
Political Weirdos
647 readers
547 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
do these recent depictions of kamala not fall under the recent ban on likenesses of people in sexually compromising images?
They're fucking stupid, but satire is protected speech (and images like this of public figures have long been ruled to be satire).
fair enough, I was wondering why AI images didn't fall under the same idea
Satire porn is also considered free speech. (I'm not kidding) The difference is that it needs to obviously be satire and clearly fake. As I see it, that's the difference between the AI porn law and satire porn. I also think the new AI law hasn't been tested in the courts yet for things like that.
No one's going to confuse a cartoon for the real thing, but the AI fakes are explicitly designed to do so.
Well not always, but yeah they can be.
i know AI is getting pretty good but i'm not mistaking AI for real porn any more than a good photoshop
that you know of.