• jimmy90@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    3 months ago

    do these recent depictions of kamala not fall under the recent ban on likenesses of people in sexually compromising images?

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’re fucking stupid, but satire is protected speech (and images like this of public figures have long been ruled to be satire).

        • blady_blah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Satire porn is also considered free speech. (I’m not kidding) The difference is that it needs to obviously be satire and clearly fake. As I see it, that’s the difference between the AI porn law and satire porn. I also think the new AI law hasn’t been tested in the courts yet for things like that.

        • _stranger_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          No one’s going to confuse a cartoon for the real thing, but the AI fakes are explicitly designed to do so.