Facebook Exchange: "Original Intent," Deep-Fake Videos And The First Commandment's Proscription Of Images

Alan Archibald

23 hrs · 

Where is the conservative jurisprudential doctrine of “original intent” when it could be put to good use?

Linda Robertshaw

August 6 at 12:54 PM

I absolutely support your right
to bear [and even stockpile] 
MUSKETS!

4 Comments

Like

CommentShare

Comments

• 

  Zach Zimet Does the same logic apply to the 1st Amendment?

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 2h
  • 

    Alan Archibald The First Amendment is already compromised since the Supreme Court has already limited Freedom of Speech by saying "You can't yeall Fire! in a crowded theater."

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 1h
  • 

    Zach Zimet Sure, same as how you need a license for a gun and can't own a machinegun.
    
    You're dodging.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 44m
  • 

    Alan Archibald Zach Zimet It didn't even occur to me to dodge. 
    
    I just said what made the most sense to me in terms of your question. 
    
    But I'll also say this. 
    
    The legal principle of "original intent" (as it applies to the constitution) is a favorite guiding light among conservative judges - most notably Antonin Scalia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent
    
    When the framers of the constitution composed the 2nd Amendment, they had nothing in mind but single shot muskets and pistols.
    
    One can make a strong argument -- a case that satisfies me -- that the framers' original intent was to permit single shot firearms only.
    
    Then there's this dicey issue. 
    
    I assume you would agree that it is a good idea not to extend the right to bear arms to nukes in my basement, or your basement, or the Trump Tower basement. 
    
    Which brings into play the principle (which satisfies me personally) that once a legal system (with the approval of the citizenry) determines that "a line can be drawn somewhere," then I hold that reasonable people can -- by referendum or simply by routine legislation -- draw the line anywhere. 
    
    I also believe that "original intent" as it applies to the First Amendment vouchsafed three things: the spoken word, the printed word and political cartoons.
    
    Photographs, film and video are not covered.
    
    In light of "Deep Fake Videos," I think we would wisely move in the direction of teaching our children -- at every level of our education system -- that photographs and "moving images" are now so subject to total fabrication -- fabrication that cannot be perceived or tracked -- that only irrational crazy people would trust the authenticity of such images.
    
    I will not dig deep here but will mention my admiration for Judaism and Islam's absolute proscription of "representational images" so that, as I understand the motivation, images don't interpose themselves between human beings and the raw existential experience of reality/God. 
    
    In any event, there is no such problem with the spoken word, the printed word and cartoons.
    
    But here we have a problem Houston - a huge and soon to be insurmountable problem unless we take The First Commandment seriously.
    
    NPR: "Tracking Down Deep-Fake Videos"
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../npr-tracking-down...
    
    In the Jewish (and Christian) bibles, The First Commandment takes the following form.
    
    I am Yahweh your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Emphasis mine.)
    
    — Exodus 20:2-6 (WEB)
    A closing note...
    
    I do not advocate the proscription of hate speech as is commonplace in Europe, and I have long thought the prohibition of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is also dubious.
    
    Am I dodging?
    
    What do you think about these constituional questions?

    

    EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

    Original intent - Wikipedia

    Original intent - Wikipedia

    
    

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · Remove Preview
    •  · 1m