'Deep Fake' Legislation Is On The Way, Threatening Free Speech Protections

from the how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-AI-making-Maria-sing-DJ-Assault-tracks dept

The proliferation of deep fake videos is going to start having an effect on First Amendment protections. Hint: it's not going to make these protections any stronger.

"Deep fake" may be easier to define than "fake news," but that doesn't mean there won't be collateral damage. The issue isn't a new one. Faking reality has been around nearly as long as reality itself. Cheap tools that make this anyone's game is the only thing new. Before we had deep fakes, we had Photoshop and its imitators.

Video used to be the last bulwark of truth. It couldn't be faked easily. But this too has been abused for years. Editing video to make it show what the editor wants it to show is a tactic that has been used for years. Now, however, tools make it possible to put new words in peoples' mouths, as was demonstrated to devastating satirical effect when a video of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was tricked out to make it appear as though Zuckerberg was promising to swallow every user's data and privacy.

This is prompting legislators to act. Concerns over the potential of deep fakes to mislead people or, in some cases, destroy the unwitting participant's reputation, are leading to the production of legislation from people not entirely sure what they're dealing with.

Apparently shaken by a deep fake video of former president Barack Obama calling President Trump a "dipshit" and Housing Secretary Ben Carson "brainwashed," a California assemblyperson is pitching anti-deep fake legislation. Ben Christopher of CalMatters has the details:

“I immediately realized, ‘Wow, this is a technology that plays right into the hands of people who are trying to influence our elections like we saw in 2016,’” said Assemblyman Marc Berman, a Democrat whose district includes Silicon Valley.

So Berman, chair of the Assembly’s election committee, has introduced a bill that would make it illegal to “knowingly or recklessly” share “deceptive audio or visual media” of a political candidate within 60 days of an election “with the intent to injure the candidate’s reputation or to deceive a voter into voting for or against the candidate.”

This bill may be narrowly-crafted to target only perceived election interference, but that still isn't enough to ward off possible Constitutional problems. For one, this law would punish anyone "knowingly" sharing something "deceptive." The problem is the word "deceptive." It doesn't just cover deep fakes that put words in candidates' mouths. It would also cover videos edited to show candidates in a bad light by taking comments or statements out of context. This has never been illegal before. Just because tech is allowing people to do scary new things with video processing tools is no reason to start criminalizing common campaign tactics.

Unsurprisingly, this legislative effort is opposed by the ACLU, EFF, and two major California journalism organizations. The news publishers point out this effort will do damage to protected speech while doing almost nothing to ensure election integrity.

[W]hitney Prout, staff attorney with the publishers’ association, called the bill “an ineffective and frankly unconstitutional solution that causes more problems than it solves.” She warned that, if enacted into law, it could discourage social media users from sharing any political content online, lest it be a fake and they be held legally liable. Another possible consequence, she said, is that campaigns plaster every attack ad with a deepfake disclosure to shield themselves from lawsuits, leaving the voting public even more confused.

This issue isn't going to go away though, and it's inevitable laws will be passed to try to curtail the harm caused by deep fakes. At the federal level, the discussion has gotten a bit hyperbolic, with senators calling deep fakes a threat to national security, and when those words are used to justify Congressional action, the American public always comes out on the losing end.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, california, deception, deep fakes, free speech, intent, legislation, marc berman


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2019 @ 8:24pm

    Re:

    You seem to be upset, or on the verge of having an aneurysm, or both. I suggest calming down and using less caps.

    WE HAVE TO AMEND SECTION 230 AND MY POLITICAL FAMILY WILL

    Not if the people say no or the courts strike it down as unconstitutional you won't. Perhaps you would feel more at home in a country run by a dictatorship where you would get to make the rules. But you're not, so deal with it.

    SORRY TECHDIRT, SECTION 230 IS GOING TO BE AMENDED.

    And you know this how?

    LOOK AT THIS MAN SPITTING IN ARIZONA ICE TEA AT A SUPERMARKET. SPITTING AND LICKING ICE CREAM AND PUTTING IT BACK ON THE SHELVES IS BECOMING A NEW AND DANGEROUS TREND.

    Really? How do you figure? And why do you think that this hasn't been going on since supermarkets first came to be? You're naive if do.

    THAT IS BECAUSE INTERNET COMPANIES ARE NOT TAKING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PULLING DOWN VIDEO IN TIME.

    Why is it not the responsibility of the people doing the licking to not do it in the first place?

    DO NOT GIVE ME THIS SHIT.

    Because it's not and I will absolutely give it to you.

    MY FAMILY IS WORKING FOR TRUMP

    I question your family's life choices but to each his own I suppose. Also, so?

    AND IS PUSHING SECTION 230 TO BE AMENDED.

    That doesn't make it a sure thing or even a good idea.

    I READ YOUR BULLSHIT AND ITS BULLSHIT

    Care to explain why?

    WHEN WE AIR GUYS LIKE THIS SPITTING IN ARIZONA ICE TEA PEOPLE WILL DEMAND THAT THOSE VIDEO GET SHUT DOWN

    Oh? You know the nightly news has been airing videos like this for decades and no one has raised a fuss. But now suddenly it gets posted online and everyone has a conniption. Why? Are you implying that the nightly news should no longer air videos of people doing bad/stupid things as part of their news reporting?

    ONCE SECTION 230 IS AMENDED

    Continuing to repeat something you have no control over will not magically make it true.

    THE INTERNET COMPANIES WHO ARE BANNING TRUMP SUPPORTERS

    Well, the people they are banning might be Trump supporters but that's not the reason WHY they were banned. For proof, you can just look to the scads of other Trump supporters that are still on these platforms. There must be something special about these specific ones, like they perhaps broke the rules of using said platforms. And that says more about Trump and his supporters than it does about the internet companies.

    WILL BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS AND THEY DESERVE TO BE

    Why and why? Removing 230 protections from the bigger companies like Facebook and Google is not likely to put them out of business, though possible I suppose. But they in no way deserve to be. They've done nothing blatantly illegal. Have they screwed up? Absolutely, but that hardly warrants them being put out of business.

    Take a chill pill.


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.