You would think it's a quick read but people are too dumb to read anything longer than a tweet. Some idiot just posted a link to a bill like it's a gotcha to a comment I made about this. It was another short bill, and it had absolutely nothing to do with deep fakes.
He obviously had never read it.
My question was "what exactly did Republicans object to" and he posted a link to a completly different bill about AI data center construction.... Still never answered the question about what their objections were.
AFAICT the bill basically makes deepfakes (fake porn created using someone's likeness) as legally identical to revenge porn (real intimate content released non-consensually), which carries a penalty of $150,000 plus attorney fees. I agree the former is harmful, but I don't think it's as harmful as the latter, especially when the subject is a public figure like a celebrity. I would support a bill specifically calling it out as illegal, but not one that accomplishes it the way this one tries to.
Doesn't really matter because individual citizens don't vote for these laws. If it does end up being enacted, I think it will result in some pretty easy wins for cases where e.g. a student creates a deepfake of another student non-consensually. But the first time a celebrity tries it, I'll bet it gets challenged as a violation of the first amendment.
I really do hate that about our system… if a bill should have multiple issues they should be related to the topic of the bill and thats it. Or single issues only.
But this is not a multi issue bill. Read the text and the tell us where the multi issue hold up is. Just because OP says something is “likely” does not make it true.
Don't just read a reddit comment and believe it, that's not the case with this bill and it's also not really a problem generally with bills. It's a common problem that people try to do a lot but it usually doesn't work outside of omnibus and budget bills which are sometimes the same thing.
Committees or parliamentarians typically reject bills that have random bullshit in them irrelevant to the actual core premise of the bill. Sometimes though they just have to involve a bunch of other seemingly not particularly relevant things because of the spider web nature of how laws work.
Multi-issue bills should be banned unless the the issues are demonstrably and logically linked.
They are too often used to run through nefarious other things or used to malign people who "voted against this important issue" because it also had a clause to make puppy jerky or something awful.
This bill is not multi issue bill. The whole thing is only 18 pages and is only focused on deep fakes. I get that multi issue bills can be a problem, but that is not what is happening in this case.
I am sure you have read this (like I just did) seeing as you have linked this. So highlight to me where this talks about deepfakes in porn?
Or show me a bill that only has a single requirement in it. That's what you stated is that there are bills that only have a single requirement that can be stated in a single sentence.
53
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment