A bipartisan group of US senators introduced a bill Tuesday that would criminalize the spread of nonconsensual, sexualized images generated by artificial intelligence. The measure comes in direct response to the proliferation of pornographic AI-made images of Taylor Swift on X, formerly Twitter, in recent days.

The measure would allow victims depicted in nude or sexually explicit “digital forgeries” to seek a civil penalty against “individuals who produced or possessed the forgery with intent to distribute it” or anyone who received the material knowing it was not made with consent. Dick Durbin, the US Senate majority whip, and senators Lindsey Graham, Amy Klobuchar and Josh Hawley are behind the bill, known as the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2024, or the “Defiance Act.”

Archive

  • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    When that opinion is about what a Law does or does not cover? Yes, only a Lawyer’s opinion should be involved. What a Law should/n’t cover or how it should/n’t work? Layperson’s opinion is important.

    • Xhieron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      Hi, lawyer here.

      Everyone’s opinion about the law matters, including what it covers, whether it’s vague, whether it applies, etc. This is Lemmy–not court. We’re in the town square here. Drinking yourself through three years of law school doesn’t imbue you with magical abilities to interpret laws as though they were religious texts. It’s just an education–not a miracle. If lawyers always knew what the law meant and laypeople always didn’t, no one would be fretting over hotly anticipated SCOTUS opinions, because everyone would already know the outcome.

      But wouldn’t you know it, reasonable people sometimes disagree, and among those reasonable people, quite often, are non-lawyers.

      As it turns out, non-lawyers often have an outsized influence on the law. Did you know that Donald Trump has never been to law school? Unbelievable, right? But hard to fathom though it may be, the big orange idiot hasn’t sat in on a single hour of L1 Torts. In fact he may have never even have seen the inside of a law library. Yet his opinion about the law has a tremendous impact, bigger even than Dr. Moose’s, because checking the “went to law school” box really doesn’t mean a hell of a lot outside of very limited situations.

      Personally, I’m much more interested in Dr. Moose’s opinion on this law than I am Rudy Giuliani’s, or even Clarence Thomas’s (and both those guys went to law school), and it’s no bother to me that he’s not a lawyer. In fact, it’s probably a mark in his favor.

      If you’re not interested in his opinion because he’s not a lawyer, well hey, that’s totally allowed, but you can easily ignore his comments without being pedantic. Or maybe you could just concede that there’s probably a bunch of strong opinions you also hold on subjects on which you’re not an expert. In fact, the whole lot of omg-not-a-lawyer! non-lawyers pitching little fits in this comment thread probably have strong feelings about war even though many of them have probably never put on a uniform. They might have strong feelings about healthcare despite never having darkened the door of a medical school. Shit, we might all even have strong feelings about politics despite never having gotten a single vote in a single election, ever. Can you believe it?!

      Yeah. It’s just an opinion. If you’re gatekeeping ‘having an unqualified opinion’ you should probably just lock yourself in your house and bar the windows, 'cause it’s gonna be an uphill battle for you.

      • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        My dear self declared Law involved personage. Nope. It matters not one whit what the layperson’s opinion about what a Law covers or not as the sole arbiters are the Judiciary. Any layperson’s opinion involved is a matter of “should” or "shouldn’t. They have no say in the final passed Law, only the Courts do. To claim otherwise is to pretend “sovereign citizen” is an actual thing.

        But the reality wasn’t important to you. Was it, law boi.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Aww. You sound mad. Don’t be mad. Sorry if I got under your skin. Have a Coke and a smile.

          • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            A: high sugar drinks are a leading cause of diabetes and should be avoided. I recommend rum instead.
            B: don’t make me angry, you won’t like me when I’m, angry.
            C: you are not the boss of me.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        Everyone’s opinion about the law matters,

        Hard disagree, only opinion of people who actually read the law - matter on the topic. Everything else just creates more confusion. We are on the internet most people never bother to go and actually read what they are talking about - and that includes me.