Deep Fake Videos
transform reality into absolutely convincing perceptions of reality.
Remember.
"They" can deep fake faster than you can fact-check (assuming that fact-checking is still possible).
Remember.
"They" can deep fake faster than you can fact-check (assuming that fact-checking is still possible).
Where is the conservative jurisprudential doctrine of “original intent” when it could be put to good use?
Comments
Zach Zimet Meh re: trollish. I am trying to ask a question you seem to not want to answer. Instead you have produced plenty of words about your concerns for fake audio/video/photos.
This despite the fact that text has been vulnerable to counterfeit since its invention and is actually the foundation for our entire legal system and bureaucracy.
However, you shared a meme which fairly clearly states that you think that the right(s) protected by the 2A only apply to technology of the time of writing.
I asked you a simple question: do you believe the same thing about the 1A?
You have yet to answer in a form recognizable to me, despite my efforts to puzzle through your verbiage about fake this and that.
Maybe if you dumbed it down a bit for me? Maybe a simple answer like, "No, I believe that the 1A protects radio, TV, and internet communication (etc.) from government censorship," or, "Yes, I believe that the government is free to censor/control communication in any media not available in 1791."
Alan Archibald Zach Zimet
Falsification is an omnipresent risk. C'est la vie.
However, the particular vehicles of free speech accessible to the framers of the constitution are qualitatively less prone to manipulation and "enveloping deception/illusion" - both conscious and unconscious - than digital-imago forms of speech.
Let's see if the following statement works for you.
"Yes, I believe that the people -- prompted by a future state of consciousness -- will choose educational-and-instructional methods (public and private) that systematically corrode the credibility of media not yet available in 1791. This systematic denigration of credibility may include amendment of the 1st Amendment and, by extension, associated Supreme Court decisions. However, until collective consciousness develops to this point, I believe no changes should be made to 1st Amendment guarantees as currently understood and that the Supreme Court should not accept any case that could undermine the principle of "stare stasis.""
The essential "speech issue" -- and it is a transcendentally important issue -- is this:
"This Video May Not Be Real... But You'll Swear It Is"
https://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../this-video-may...
Trumpistas, enthralled by the machinations of Cambridge Analytica and Russian computer manipulation, are canaries in the mineshaft.
Lamentably, Trumpistas are among those creatures mythically taxonomized as "The Undead."
PAXONBOTHHOUSES.BLOGSPOT.COMThis Video May Not Be Real... But You'll Swear It IsThis Video May Not Be Real... But You'll Swear It Is
- · Reply
- · Remove Preview
- · 1m
No comments:
Post a Comment