• @jimmy90
    link
    404 months ago

    do these recent depictions of kamala not fall under the recent ban on likenesses of people in sexually compromising images?

    • @Warl0k3
      link
      264 months ago

      They’re fucking stupid, but satire is protected speech (and images like this of public figures have long been ruled to be satire).

      • @jimmy90
        link
        74 months ago

        fair enough, I was wondering why AI images didn’t fall under the same idea

        • @_stranger_
          link
          74 months ago

          No one’s going to confuse a cartoon for the real thing, but the AI fakes are explicitly designed to do so.

          • @jimmy90
            link
            04 months ago

            i know AI is getting pretty good but i’m not mistaking AI for real porn any more than a good photoshop

        • @blady_blah
          link
          74 months ago

          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.