Political Weirdos

742 readers

449 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 3 months ago

MODERATORS

Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world

654

So fucking weirdly creepy (slrpnk.net)

submitted 3 months ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/political_weirdos@lemmy.world

169 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 1 points 3 months ago

Well not always, but yeah they can be.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

that you know of.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 7 points 3 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.