What law?See them as you like. Law treats threats as conduct.
What law?See them as you like. Law treats threats as conduct.
I fancy that you've proven yours.You proved your ignorance of the US.
Nice try, troll.I fancy that you've proven yours.
You're simply a sourpuss loser. Begone. Polish your Trump badge.Nice try, troll.
pooh pooh caa caaYou're simply a sourpuss loser. Begone. Polish your Trump badge.
I never drink and dance at the same time- unless some lady wants to drink or dance!If you are dancing in the street and shouting, I will assume it is alcohol that is causing your mad fits of anger.
Your a mental toddler.pooh pooh caa caa
Get lost, bozo
Put it this way. Speech is conduct. Words don’t write or speak themselves. Threats raise words into imminent unlawful conduct making the words also unlawful.What law?
I was warned by Damocles for posting deepfake porn gifs of AOC.
Do you really approve of a Fake picture of you sucking Donnie's Dick showing up on Facebook?
Well, OAC has been a target of these cowards that have been using AI and her picture in very sexually degrading ways,.
It's a lot more harmful than just slander, and I am surprised you don't get it!
First Amendment.
Free speech.
It's so nice to see you have your humor and your wit back!That probably wouldn't be a fake - just saying.
It's sexual assault.
I strongly disagree. There is no free speech -- which is protected opinion IMO -- in AI-generated fake photos whether pornographic or not. A citizen's right to privacy overrules a fraudster's 1st amendment rights when he attempts to invade that privacy and/or demean them by creating false images, usually of them doing something illegal, immoral, or just untrue. Cartoons are one thing; they're obviously not going to be taken as reality. An altered photo of a sex act with a non-consenting, non-present person inserted into the photo should not be considered "free speech."
First time I've disagreed with her.
Bill here. Passed Senate.
Deep fakes are funny. Free speech.
I think "yelling fire in a crowded theater" might apply here.First Amendment.
Free speech.
Sure, as I have umpteen times, because the operative clauses, “shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed,” is dependent upon the prefatory clause, and until one can definitively define the prefatory clause, which no has been able to do since 1789, the latter is inapplicablecare to explain why 'shall make no law', 'shall not be infringed', among several other phrases indicating that government has NO POWER to do those things?
Yep. Or fired, like this guy.not to mention the fact that AI generated videos are becoming very realistic. So imagine having a clip put out there that depicts you having sex with a minor. Because it looks so real, you end up arrested and charged.
Yeah, I saw that.Yep. Or fired, like this guy.
Gym teacher accused of using AI voice clone to try to get a high school principal fired
There's a difference between "I hate Putin and wish I could kill him" and "I hate Putin and I'm going to kill him."No, speech.
No freedom or right in the Constitution is unlimited, never were, never will be, every one of them is, and has always been, regulatedThe First Amendment protects freedom of expression (verbal and non-verbal) but the freedom of expression is not unlimited. In the particular type of public expression you are referring to here (i.e. pornographic) is prohibited under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment does not permit lewd (sexually obscene) public expressions).
What it means is this...suppose that if you out driving in you car and a police cruiser pulls you over. The traffic cops say to you that you were speeding. You vehemently deny this and tell him there is no way you were driving over the speed limit. He doesn't listen to you and and simply writes out a ticket for a $eoo fine. After he hands you the ticket, you are not free to bend over, drop your panties, spread your pimply butt checks are bare your poxy bung-hole in the police officer's face in order to demonstrate your utter contempt for law enforcement . This is because exposing your naked butt in this manner constitutes lewd ( sexually obscene - especially in your case) conduct, and this behaviour is not a form of expression that protected by the first Amendment (due to the fact that it is outlawed under the 14th Amendment). You are free to express the feeling of contempt in countless different verbal, non-verbal and symbolic ways, but NOT like this (i.e. using behaviour that is LEWD). Another example is that I might be a sandal - wearing, long-hared, herbal, liberal who is a passional advocate of "free love" and the freedom to express the philosophy of "free love." If I was sitting with my girl friend one even in a busy, restaurant and I decided to bend her over a dining table and hoist her shirt and start poking her up the "Gary Glitter" my public expression of the philosophy of "free love" would not be protected by the First Amendment. Rather I would almost certainly be arrested by the local police and charged with lewd conduct in a public place/ or "moral terpitude."
Geddit Evince ?
Dachshund Dawg
Dachshund the Loyal TRUMPER Hound !!
Let alone that no US law makes threatening Putin illegal.There's a difference between "I hate Putin and wish I could kill him" and "I hate Putin and I'm going to kill him."