Well making a deep fake is legal, however using it for illegal activities is not - freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. You're free to make a bomb threat and nobody will silence you if you do, but it's likely the FBI will knock on your door.
It's not about what you say (or in this case produce), it's about your intent.
Not to disagree with your statement about intent, but...
>freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences
...that's not a very convincing form of free speech. What exactly does "free speech" mean then, if not freedom from consequences? It's not as if it's even possible to silence someone before the fact.
"You are free to criticise comrade Stalin! You are also free to go to gulag!"
Usually when I see that statement it’s to make the point that freedom of speech (in the first amendment sense) protects you from government consequences, but not societal consequences. The government won’t stop you from saying something offensive, but your country club can kick you out for saying it.
I agree with you that this sense doesn’t really apply here, though.
> Creating a deep fake of a celebrity hardly counts as expressing your opinions...
On its own, sure. It may still be one step in the process, however. On their own merits, renting out an audience hall or TV broadcast slot, or operating a 3D graphics program, are not "expressing one's opinions" either. These things are only a means to an end. However, restrictions on such activity would still impact your ability to effectively communicate your opinions to the public.
Use of "deep fakes" (or shallow ones) in a commercial context to trick someone into purchasing goods or services or otherwise agree to a contract under false pretenses is fraud—which in the end is just a form of theft, and deserves to be treated as such. That doesn't violate the 1st Amendment because it's not the speech per se which is being punished, but rather the act of taking someone else's stuff when its ownership was never properly transferred to you through a valid contract. Contracts require "meeting of the minds", which is precluded by fraud.
Other than that narrow scope, the law has no business being involved.
>Other than that narrow scope, the law has no business being involved.
I would disagree there. The personal rights of the people who are being deepfaked (both provider of body acting and the face) are violated unless you get consent from both. These personal rights in my opinion also trump any free speech rights as these people have their own, more important rights to their body and images thereof.
The most stringent proportional response available to punish people for creating these "deep fakes" would simply be for those offended by the practice to do the same in return. That is their right, of course—turnabout is always fair play—and it may help reduce the impact of the original fake video, but it's unlikely to be seen as much of a punishment.
> as these people have their own, more important rights to their body and images thereof
Nonsense. You do own your physical body, of course, and consequently have the right to use it as you please, but there is no right to control images of your body. That would be tantamount to claiming the right to control the contents of others' minds.
Note that your right to use your body does not imply that you have the right to use others' bodies or other property as you please just because your own body happens to be involved. Owners have the right to veto any action which affects their use of their property; in other words, you have the right to do whatever you want as long as it involves only your own property, but need others' consent if your actions would impact their use of their property.
Regarding the image: (a) the image (the content, as opposed to the physical media) is not property; (b) even if it were, it would not be your property; (c) even if it were your property, someone else's use of the image would not have any impact on your own ability to use it, so you wouldn't have the right to veto that use.
Rights sometimes overlap, but they never conflict and are certainly never "trumped" by other rights.
> but there is no right to control images of your body. That would be tantamount to claiming the right to control the contents of others' minds.
There is, it's called copyright. At least where I live you own copyright on the image of your face and body. That gives you the right to tell others how and when that image may be used.
And you would certainly have the right to veto certain uses of your image.
Rights conflict and some rights can trump others. For example, the police may place the rights of others not being hurt over your right to bear arms in the US. If you spoke loud enough with a megaphone into someone's ear, their right to not be bodily harmed would conflict with your right to free speech and likely would trump it.
Another example would be religious rights; they frequently trump other rights and laws and some laws and rights trump your freedom of religion.
Rights aren't equal and black and white, they have an order of importance that depends on the situation and their importance to society.
> Creating a deep fake of a celebrity hardly counts as expressing your opinions
I agree that deep fakes seem an odd and unexpected fit for a dictionary editor's word choice made under the obvious constraint of brevity. But I don't get the relevance.
To be clear: I don't see what it has to do with the relationship between producing/distributing a deep fake and a) the explicit rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment, b) the implicit rights reserved for citizens by the 1st Amendment being written in the scope of the U.S. Constitution, and c) 200+ years of legal precedent which clarifies the scope of free speech protections of the 1st Amendment.
Would you say that this parody video [1] which takes several speeches from then-british-prime-minister David Cameron and cuts between them, sometimes mid-word, to construct a song with lyrics like "I am disgusted by the poor, and my chums matter more" is political speech? Would you say it's fake, and of a celebrity?
It's not about what you say (or in this case produce), it's about your intent.