THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY passed a bipartisan bill to provide recourse to victims of porn deepfakes — or sexually-explicit, non-consensual images created with artificial intelligence.

The legislation, called the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act — passed in Congress’ upper chamber on Tuesday.  The legislation has been led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in the House.

The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to allow people to sue those who produce, distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography, if they “knew or recklessly disregarded” the fact that the victim did not consent to those images.

  • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -14 months ago

    where someone spreads nudes around as a way to punish their current or former partner

    I would consider, as an example, a student who created a vulgar AI porn display of another student or teacher out of some sense of spite an example of “revenge porn”. Same with a coworker or boss trying to humiliate someone at the office.

    Think about a political comic showing a pro-corporate politician performing a sex act with Jeff bezos.

    That’s another good example. The Trump/Putin kissing mural is a great example of something that ends up being homophobic rather than partisan.

    it’s perfectly legal for me to generate and distribute a fake ai video of my neighbor shooting a puppy

    If you used it to slander your neighbor, it would not be legal.

    • @Asifall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      14 months ago

      That’s another good example. The Trump/Putin kissing mural is a great example of something that ends up being homophobic rather than partisan.

      So you think it should be illegal?

      If you used it to slander your neighbor, it would not be legal.

      You’re entirely ignoring my point, I’m not trying to pass the video off as real therefore it’s not slander.

      • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        04 months ago

        So you think it should be illegal?

        I think it’s an example of partisan language that ends up being blandly homophobic.

        You’re entirely ignoring my point

        Why would putting up a giant sign reading “My neighbor murders dogs for fun” be a tort but a mural to the same effect be protected?