What Is Free Speech?

[Ingomike]

Lots of attacks on free speech today. Some very thorny emotional issues are rearing their head. Getting harder to draw lines as to what is protected speech and what is not protected. Some examples:

You or your spouse starring in AI generated porn? Is the creator engaged in protected speech or not? Is it different than drawing a cartoon depiction? Neither are real.

What about the high school boys that put their classmates in AI porn?

What about this? Free speech or election fraud?

The Vote-by-Tweet Memes Prosecution

I have an article about it at Tablet Magazine; here's the opening: In 2016, a Florida man named Douglass Mackey…

reason.com

I am sure we will come up with some great ones I have not mentioned yet. Remember most cases that result in decisions are ugly, like the unsavory character that had his truck seized by cops in indiana that resulted in some limits to seizures…

 

[foszoe]

I came looking for definitive answers. I leave with more questions.

 

[Ingomike]

I came looking for definitive answers. I leave with more questions.

That is the point of questions…

 

[Ingomike]

Free speech or not?

It’s not just Taylor Swift ‘nudes’: Millions of teen girls victimized as classmates turn them into deepfake porn

Francesca Mani, 14, was turned into a vile pornographic nude by boys in her class. Millions of teen girls could be victims too.

nypost.com

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Free speech or not?

It’s not just Taylor Swift ‘nudes’: Millions of teen girls victimized as classmates turn them into deepfake porn

Francesca Mani, 14, was turned into a vile pornographic nude by boys in her class. Millions of teen girls could be victims too.

nypost.com

Not free speech. It's not free speech when one chooses to slander or libel someone else. This is the same principle but even more heinous where children are involved.

 

[10mm]

I think the devil is in the details here.
Firstly, rights come with responsibilities. The right to freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of speaking the truth. A common argument is that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded space. The answer to this is simple, you can if there's a fire.
Secondly:
Is AI human? Does it have rights?
I think in both cases, the relatively complex ai systems we have are still much too simple to be considered human or even sentient and definitely have no rights.

Therefore, I think what we're really after here is the question, "Is someone using AI free speech?".

Someone else using your image in a way that you disagree with or would damage you or your reputation can also have legal consequences should you decide to pursue it.

I don't think pornography is free speech in any case, though.

The voting meme is free speech, but it comes with a consequence of voter fraud or election interference based on how many people fall for it. It's kind of a gray area that falls into the category of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". No one can stop you from posting or shouting these things from a soap box, but there are consequences for misleading people in something that supposedly has so much gravity.

The final answer I can give definitively as high schoolers depicted sexually is child pornography and should not be treated as anything but repugnant in all cases.

 

[blue2golf]

Not free speech. It's not free speech when one chooses to slander or libel someone else. This is the same principle but even more heinous where children are involved.

Yup, prosecute. Kinda like when a kid threatens to shoot up school but says "just kidding" when arrested.

Problem is our Elites want to prosecute us for speaking truth, like the Canadian truckers or anti-lockdown protesters during Covid.

 

[indyjohn]

"The personal (human) freedom to publicly express one's opinions without consequences."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Lots of attacks on free speech today. Some very thorny emotional issues are rearing their head. Getting harder to draw lines as to what is protected speech and what is not protected. Some examples:

You or your spouse starring in AI generated porn? Is the creator engaged in protected speech or not? Is it different than drawing a cartoon depiction? Neither are real.

People wonder how the law and case law become so convoluted. Questions like that are how. Society and technology becoming more complex always raises new and unforeseen questions.

I think, generally, the same principals laid down at or near the founding apply, though reasonable minds can differ on where exactly the line is drawn. Political speech enjoys the greatest protection, economic speech much less so. Copyright and trademarks, by definition, limit free speech but are considered necessary limits for the purposes of rewarding creatives. Libel/slander have never been protected speech, though public figures are required to put up a greater deal of it than private citizens are.

So, while I won't delve into the specific examples, I think AI is going to lead to both new laws and new case law addressing those very concerns. And somebody is going to be unhappy regardless.

 

[Ingomike]

Not free speech. It's not free speech when one chooses to slander or libel someone else. This is the same principle but even more heinous where children are involved.

Many believe as you do, though I fail to see where an individual infatuated with TS uses AI to create porn they like is slandering the subject unless they try to pass it off as real. And while the issue involving children is reprehensible do we make it illegal to think or draw cartoons, AI is just a technological way to visually create thoughts, no children are involved.

 

[Ingomike]

This thread is really going to separate the libertarians from the pretenders…

 

[Twangbanger]

This thread is really going to separate the libertarians from the pretenders…

Send me a picture of your wife's/daughter's faces (or, I'll just get it elsewhere). We'll start the separation process right now.

 

[Ingomike]

Secondly:
Is AI human? Does it have rights?
I think in both cases, the relatively complex ai systems we have are still much too simple to be considered human or even sentient and definitely have no rights.

AI rights are not a part if my question but are an interesting issue to come, probably sooner than we expect…

Therefore, I think what we're really after here is the question, "Is someone using AI free speech?".

More thinking if one shares what one created with AI is that free speech.

Someone else using your image in a way that you disagree with or would damage you or your reputation can also have legal consequences should you decide to pursue it.

If one uses a picture of you from public sources it is not “your image” and you have no say in its use How would that damage one’s reputation absent fraud saying it was real and not fake?

I don't think pornography is free speech in any case, though.

That horse left the barn a long time ago, SCOTUS declared porn speech that is free.

The voting meme is free speech, but it comes with a consequence of voter fraud or election interference based on how many people fall for it. It's kind of a gray area that falls into the category of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". No one can stop you from posting or shouting these things from a soap box, but there are consequences for misleading people in something that supposedly has so much gravity.

The left has posted that type of thing many times before, that have been well documented, but a conservative does it and even the DOJ, that waited four years, until they had full control of the DOJ admitted it was a novel legal theory, but conservatives sure don’t seem mind the shackles its acceptance will bring.

The final answer I can give definitively as high schoolers depicted sexually is child pornography and should not be treated as anything but repugnant in all cases.

Child porn must necessarily involve children. Children from the imagination of AI are not children.

All this will and is being used to muzzle the people.

I may find your speech repugnant but will fight to the death for you to say it. As @creedmore often says, freedom is uncomfortable…

 

[Ingomike]

Send me a picture of your wife's/daughter's faces (or, I'll just get it elsewhere). We'll start the separation process right now.

So HUSTLER MAGAZINE and Larry C. Flynt v. Jerry FALWELL was wrongly decided?

I hope my bedrock principles are stronger than that…

 

[Twangbanger]

So HUSTLER MAGAZINE and Larry C. Flynt v. Jerry FALWELL was wrongly decided?

I hope my bedrock principles are stronger than that…

I don't see the connection. Was Larry Flynt publishing deep-fakes of Jerry Falwell getting donut glazed by a tranny train?

 

[Ingomike]

I don't see the connection. Was Larry Flynt publishing deep-fakes of Jerry Falwell getting donut glazed by a train of trannies?

He did a disgusting parody story of the minister and his mother, he did with words what AI does with images…

 

[Twangbanger]

He did a disgusting parody story of the minister and his mother, he did with words what AI does with images…

That case involved the most hated pompous-ass religious conservative of modern times, 6 liberals on the Supreme Court (= outcome not in doubt), and most importantly, there was no intent to deceive on the part of the publisher. When the test case comes before the Court involving not a "public figure" but some powerless young girl plaintiff-shopped for maximum effect, and it's not a parody, I think you're going to see a different outcome.

 

[miketx]

Not free speech. It's not free speech when one chooses to slander or libel someone else. This is the same principle but even more heinous where children are involved.

Yes it it is. Free is free.

 

[Ingomike]

That case involved the most hated pompous-ass religious conservative of modern times, 6 liberals on the Supreme Court (= outcome not in doubt), and most importantly, there was no intent to deceive on the part of the publisher. When the test case comes before the Court involving not a "public figure" but some powerless young girl plaintiff-shopped for maximum effect, and it's not a parody, I think you're going to see a different outcome.

If so, free speech is doomed, but it probably already is…

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Child porn must necessarily involve children. Children from the imagination of AI are not children.

That's completely incorrect.

1. Producing, disseminating, or possessing with intent to disseminate obscene images involving a child under 18 years of age, even if the depicted child does not exist.

And while the issue involving children is reprehensible do we make it illegal to think or draw cartoons, AI is just a technological way to visually create thoughts, no children are involved.

Think, no. Draw, yes. See above. "Image" =/= "photograph"