Re: [黑特] 美國法律專家: AI改圖是言論自由

推 abc12812: 加州那件案件就是法律禁止deepfake被 184.191.81.15 02/19 03:23→ abc12812: 法院停止執行了阿 與其和我爭論 你不如 184.191.81.15 02/19 03:23→ abc12812: 寫個amicus brief去叫法院批准該法條阿 184.191.81.15 02/19 03:24

笑死!你連人家訴訟標的是針對選舉言論使用DEEPFAKE的部分

從頭到尾根本不包括淫穢言論甚至色情改圖的部分都不知道

這部分根本不可能主張美國憲法第一修正案的保護

就不要那邊雞同鴨講，指鹿為馬了啦!

https://reurl.cc/b3p50v

美國加州州長於2024年9月17日簽署3項法案，內容包含打擊2024總統大選前使用人工智慧（Artificial Intelligence, AI）製作不實圖片及影像的行為，然而其中2項法案於同日遭到一名惡搞影像創作者向加州法院提出控告，認為法案將迫使社群媒體進行審查且騷擾民眾。

--

回去看判決啦!別在那邊胡扯啦! 人家法官只有說禁止選舉言論DEEFAKE的部分違憲 而且只有刑罰的部分，並未排除誹謗民事求償責任 你連判決都沒看懂就不要出來丟人現眼了好嗎! The court began by concluding that AB 2839 doesn't fall within the existing defamation exception to First Amendment protection, and isn't subject to any other doctrine that categorically lowers protection for false statements in election campaigns: While Defendants attempt to analogize AB 2839 to a restriction on defamatory statements, the statute itself does not use the word "defamation" and by its own definition, extends beyond the legal standard for defamation to include any false or materially deceptive content that is "reasonably likely" to harm the "reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate." At face value, AB 2839 does much more than punish potential defamatory statements since the statute does not require actual harm and sanctions any digitally manipulated content that is "reasonably likely" to "harm" the amorphous "electoral prospects" of a candidate or elected official. Moreover, all "deepfakes" or any content that "falsely appear[s] to a reasonable person to be an authentic record of the content depicted in the media" are automatically subject to civil liability because they are categorically encapsulated in the definition of "materially deceptive content" used throughout the statute. Thus, even artificially manipulated content that does not implicate reputational harm but could arguably affect a candidate's electoral prospects is swept under this statute and subject to civil liability. The statute also punishes such altered content that depicts an "elections official" or "voting machine, ballot, voting site, or other property or equipment" that is "reasonably likely" to falsely "undermine confidence" in the outcome of an election contest. On top of these provisions lacking any objective metric and being difficult to ascertain, there are many acts that can be "do[ne] or [words that can be] sa[id]" that could harm the "electoral prospects" of a public official or "undermine confidence" in an election Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the internet, could be considered harmful. For example, AI-generated approximate numbers on voter turnout could be considered false content that reasonably undermines confidence in the outcome of an election under this statute. On the other hand, many "harmful" depictions when shown to a variety of individuals may not ultimately influence electoral prospects or undermine confidence in an election at all. As Plaintiff persuasively points out, AB 2839 "relies on various subjective terms and awkwardly-phrased mens rea," which has the effect of implicating vast amounts of political and constitutionally protected speech. Defendants further argue that AB 2839 falls into the possible exceptions recognized in U.S. v. Alvarez (2012) for lies that involve "some … legally cognizable harm." However, the legally cognizable harms Alvarez mentions does not include the "tangible harms to electoral integrity" Defendants claim that AB 2839 penalizes. Instead, the potentially unprotected lies Alvarez cognized were limited to existing causes of action such as "invasion of privacy or the costs of vexatious litigation"; "false statements made to Government officials, in communications concerning official matters"; and lies that are "integral to criminal conduct," a category that might include "falsely representing that one is speaking on behalf of the Government, or … impersonating a Government officer." 567 U.S. at 719-722 (2012). AB 2839 implicates none of the legally cognizable harms recognized by Alvarez and thereby unconstitutionally suppresses broader areas of false but protected speech. Even if AB 2839 were only targeted at knowing falsehoods that cause tangible harm, these falsehoods as well as other false statements are precisely the types of speech protected by the First Amendment. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that even deliberate lies (said with "actual malice") about the government are constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court further articulated that "prosecutions for libel on government"- — including civil liability for such libel—"have [no] place in the American system of jurisprudence." See also Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) (holding that "the Constitution does not tolerate in any form" "prosecutions for libel on government"). These same principles safeguarding the people's right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered: civil penalties for criticisms on the government like those sanctioned by AB 2839 have no place in our system of governance….

笑死!你是哪裡看不懂中文一直跳針? 你說AI改圖是美國憲法保障的言論自由 我說淫穢言論並不在憲法第一修正案的保障範圍內 故以DEEPFAKE方式發表色情圖片並不能主張言論自由免責 你是哪裡看不懂一直鬼打牆 我看每況愈下不是台大的排名 是你的中文理解能力吧!