Is it free or wrong? I think it depends on where we are on the morality meter. Years ago we would have different answers but today we are faced with an influx of moral dilemmas. It’s the heart of society that will dictate what free speech is acceptable or not. Change society and change the law.
What should be and what is are 2 different things.Almost all speech should be free, even speech that is immoral. The most obvious reason is who gets to decide what is moral? Claiming that men can’t get pregnant is immoral speech to some, but is plain, ****ing obvious to most. But the people with the political capital right now are the fringe who want that criminalized.
What speech is morally acceptable or not should not be a criminal issue. Civil courts can handle harm done by speech.
So free speech unless said out loud doesn’t seem free to me…If the people in the two cases you mention keep it to themselves, that's one thing. When it gets shared to millions of people on the internet, that's entirely different.
So you're okay with distributing AI-generated child porn? Or you'd be okay with someone creating a pornographic AI image of your wife and putting it on a billboard?So free speech unless said out loud doesn’t seem free to me…
We have learned that is already illegal, and no I don’t like it.So you're okay with distributing AI-generated child porn?
Is an AI image really an image of any particular person? Were those images of TS in fact TS? Aren’t the images a creation of AI, not an actual image of someone? I suspect a tack concerning laws will be consent but is the image really a specific individual?Or you'd be okay with someone creating a pornographic AI image of your wife and putting it on a billboard?
It's just TS's face on a body imagined by AI. It's not TS herself. I don't see how that's slandering TS. I think laws in a free society should be pretty much about protecting people's rights, and deciding, when rights collide, which side is righter. But in this case, TS doesn't have a right not to have someone put her face on an imaginary body, doing imaginary sex acts. But like you say, people don't have the right to allege that it's all real.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.
There are decency standards already. You can't put porn on a billboard nor should one be able to. But what someone watches privately is their own business, as long as it hasn't harmed anyone. It's the actual act that harms.So you're okay with distributing AI-generated child porn? Or you'd be okay with someone creating a pornographic AI image of your wife and putting it on a billboard?
Yeah, that's basically a no true Scotsman statement. One is not either all libertarian or not at all libertarian. The question is how libertarian are you? I lean pretty libertarian on most things. I'm not a free speech absolutist, though. I don't think using one's celebrity influence to incite people to riot is protected speech.This thread is really going to separate the libertarians from the pretenders…
I kinda think that this thread is about both, what should be and what is. Morally derived laws don't scale unless everyone has the same morals. And that's just not the case. The idea of federation helps to solve this problem. The idea of a constitution that limits government also helps solve the problem. Harm should drive the law more than morality, since most of morality is subjective. Harm is less subjective.What should be and what is are 2 different things.
Fact of the matter is that morality drives the law.
Free speech?…. Lol
What a time we live in.What about the high school boys that put their classmates in AI porn?
It's just TS's face on a body imagined by AI. It's not TS herself. I don't see how that's slandering TS.
Chapter 5. Actions for Certain False Charges
Universal Citation: IN Code § 34-15-5-1 (2022)
34-15-5-1. Actionable Charges
Sec. 1. Every charge of incest, homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, adultery, or whoredom falsely made against any person is actionable in the same manner as in the case of slanderous words charging a felony.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-1-62-1.]
Free speech is when our forefathers called each other names, trashed your family name and said anything they wanted to. If you didn’t like it you could have a dual or punch the guy out. Today I see someone posting a video on FB of some stupid guy doing a stupid thing and type, “That’s the dumbest thing I ever saw.” And get banned from FB for not bring nice. And you don’t dare say gay, pervert….or the ban hammer gets you. I like the old days better.
I’m afraid I went over your head.So to be clear, you think being beaten or shot for saying something *is* free speech but being banned from facepage.com is *not* free speech?
Neither is gov't actors, though, so regardless probably not that relevant.