The issue is, a deep fake, is clearly a parody. This can't be argued. That's the purpose of a deep fake at its root.
So you need a more narrow definition. If I do a deep fake of Melania giving Trump a golden shower in Moscow, that goes way beyond parody, even though it is, technically, by definition, parody.
So there is no way to say that is not a personal attack, AND there is no way to say that is not a parody.
That's the loophole that needs to be closed. You can try to argue that showing a hot school teacher or some male cop performing oral on a roomful of men was only parody, but if you get away with it there will be about 20 seconds before the law is changed. All the activists and the law enforcement people will claim that we just can't have video of every ex-girlfriend, cop, school teacher, or boss in the nation involved in whatever sexual activity seems the most degrading.
> If I do a deep fake of Melania giving Trump a golden shower in Moscow, that goes way beyond parody, even though it is, technically, by definition, parody.
By what principle is this the case?
> That's the loophole that needs to be closed.
You're not closing a loophole. You're limiting free speech.
So you need a more narrow definition. If I do a deep fake of Melania giving Trump a golden shower in Moscow, that goes way beyond parody, even though it is, technically, by definition, parody.
So there is no way to say that is not a personal attack, AND there is no way to say that is not a parody.
That's the loophole that needs to be closed. You can try to argue that showing a hot school teacher or some male cop performing oral on a roomful of men was only parody, but if you get away with it there will be about 20 seconds before the law is changed. All the activists and the law enforcement people will claim that we just can't have video of every ex-girlfriend, cop, school teacher, or boss in the nation involved in whatever sexual activity seems the most degrading.