California Bans Political Deepfakes During Election Season (theverge.com) 168
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: California has passed a law meant to prevent altered "deepfake" videos from influencing elections, in a plan that has raised free speech concerns. Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 730, which makes it a crime to distribute audio or video that gives a false, damaging impression of a politician's words or actions. The law applies to any candidate within 60 days of an election, but includes some exceptions. News media will be exempt from the requirement, as will videos made for satire or parody. Potentially deceptive video or audio will also be allowed if it includes a disclaimer noting that it's fake. The law will sunset in 2023. The report notes that Newsom also signed a law that would ban pornographic deepfakes made without consent.
News Media is a stretch (Score:2)
That is how the masses learn about things in the first place. Yeah, some fringe people might share it among themselves, but once the media takes it and keeps reporting on it over and over, that is how the masses tend to think something is real or it could be real. Take the Hunter Biden stuff, yeah it has been proven that it had no impact on the politics there or any influence from Joe, but it gets enough people thinking that it could have happened and they just hid it well enough. And there are plenty of
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Who said it... (Score:2, Insightful)
"We believe that any speech that challenges national sovereignty and social stability is not within the scope of freedom of speech."
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud isn't a free speech issue though. Making a deepfake video in order to mislead people could be fraud. I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of US to to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud isn't a free speech issue though.
There is a distinction between "false speech" and "fraud", and that distinction hinges on whether a contract is involved. Fraud is not a category of "illegal speech" but rather a form of theft. You don't become the owner of property which you acquired through fraud—which means that you have deliberately taken possession of someone else's property without their consent. Transferring ownership of property requires a valid contract, which requires meeting of the minds, and deception precludes meeting of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
God damn, this post brought out every conspiracy theorist Slashdot has.
"The tendency of the Californian government to restrict free speech is a reflection of the large number of American citizens who were born in China (or India) but who reside in California. In Chinese culture, suppressing free speech is normal."
Jesus....
Californian's of Indian decent amount to 1.42% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Californian's of Chinese decent amount to 1,349,111 people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org] which if you do
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about GP's numbers or assertions, but the idea that 5% could have a disproportionate influence isn't a conspiracy theory. After all I don't think anybody would doubt that the global elite 0.001% have a vastly disproportionate influence. The top 1% have a lesser but still disproportionate influence, the top 5% also.
Just looking purely at the wealth link, and not trying to research any kind of disproportionate engagement with bodies like the ACLU, it turns out that Indian Americans and East Asian
Re: (Score:2)
Wealth is a very poor comparison. The wealthy have a disproportional amount power because they're wealthy. Immigrants typically are not.
Re: (Score:2)
You're only providing statistics about Chinese and Chinese descendants actually living in California.
You need to include all the people companies, and organizations, and the people that work for them, that are dependent on Chinese money. Because they are now fully enmeshed with Chinese culture and especially censorship.
If you haven't heard about how these cowards bow down to Chinese commands, you should check out the South Park episode "Band in China." Or just check out James Harden's and Russel Westbrook's
Re: (Score:2)
You're siting as a primary source a cartoon? I just don't know what to make of that...
So far so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Political speech is the most protected of all, up to and including deliberate lies, lest those in power become the arbiters of truth...spoken against them.
This laughable law will be tossed 9-0 if it even gets that far.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Political speech is the most protected of all, up to and including deliberate lies
Nope. You can lie for political purposes, sure. But using somebody's image for that makes it a slander at best.
Mod up please (Score:2)
Mod up please
This law easily falls under the exceptions to free speech that prohibit slander.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose someone could claim it is artistic expression....
And if of a public figure, like a politician, well, they don't have quite as many protections as the normal citizen I don't believe.....?
I think the court would have to rule, does every person OWN their likeness? I dunno if that has been tested of put into law.
I think there's a LOT of GRAY area on this one....
Re: (Score:2)
I think people are creating a lot of grey area here so they can knee jerk rail on Leftists. If it's done for the purpose of putting false words or actions on some one (which this law is specifically covering) then it quite clearly falls under "slander".
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. They're public figures and are open to all forms of parody, ridicule, satire, mockery, effigy, and general piss taking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So far so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Political speech is the most protected of all, up to and including deliberate lies
Making a fake video of someone saying something they didn't say, with technology now so good it is really difficult for a person not exposed to the technology to tell the difference from a real video, is not a lie, and is not political speech. It is not speech at all. It is an action. Otherwise, counterfeit money would be considered free speech. America today already has a problem with degree mills awarding fake degrees and allowing recipients to scam others under free speech.
Absolutism in anything is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Political speech is the most protected of all, up to and including deliberate lies
Lies are not protected speech.
Even the "freedom of speech" you bespoke, has limits, in the fucking constitution.
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who you're quoting there, but none of those exceptions are actually present in the Constitution. It would certainly be more convenient for the government if those restrictions on speech were constitutional, but there is no basis for that position in the text.
Fraud is not "illegal speech", it's theft. The taking of others' property without a valid contract transferring ownership. Deception precludes "meeting of the minds".
Threats are not "illegal speech" but (when imminent and credible) they are
Re: (Score:2)
9-0? You're dreaming.
6-3 at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Political speech is the most protected of all, up to and including deliberate lies
Yeah, no.
Political speech is HEAVILY regulated with time, place and manner restrictions.
TPM restrictions are commonplace. Consider strict reporting requirements on who is funding political speech, government reporting costs, limits on dollar values, and more. There are laws regarding accuracy and clearly delimiting statements of fact versus statements of opinions, where statements of fact can result in serious penalties (including prison time) for intentionally spreading lies.
Restrictions on political s
Re: (Score:2)
Ordinarily, I would agree. However, this isn't really a free speech issue in any traditional sense. Even those exposed to this technology can have a hard time telling these from actual footage (the better done ones, anyway). If this use of the technology is not criminalized (and yeah, I do understand the risks), what little ability to tell fact from fiction, or any variation thereof, will be essentially gone. The very foundation of our democracy (even if not a pure one) will become utterly defunct. This is
"satire"? (Score:2)
If there is a satire exemption its only meaningful if its *labeled* as satire. These days politics is often so absurd the real thing feels like satire.
The whole point... (Score:2)
Is to NOT get discovered, and get the deepfake accepted as true, so good luck.
So if I draw a hyperrealistic picture of (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So if you don't label your hyper realistic drawing a 'fake' AND they can prove that you did it with the malicious intent to deceive people, then you'd committed a crime.
If you label it as fake or "This picture is not an accurate representation of fact." how the text puts it, it stays protected speech.
Further down they mention the media forms iE: picture, video, audio. It also specifies how the labelling as 'fake
Re: (Score:2)
Photography? Painting? Cartoon? Digital painting?
Re: (Score:2)
So if I draw a hyperrealistic picture of naked Taylor Swift I've just committed a crime?
If you do and then claim it is a real photograph of her, then yes you have.
But there is a slight difference. With Taylor Swift as the example, I think you committed a crime already, before this specific law.
There is the copyright violation with using her likeness, and depending on what other claims you make along with it possibly slander laws that come into play.
Things are different regarding political figures. Copyright doesn't apply there, and slander laws regarding political figures have far higher req
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends what you do with it. If you try to pass it off as real and maybe sell it to some gossip rag or a porn site you could be in trouble. If you throw it on Deviant Art with a note that you drew it yourself then you are probably fine.
See, it's not exercising your speech that will get you in trouble, it's fraudulently trying to pass it off as something that it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
So what does this accomplish? (Score:2)
These toothless laws mean jack diddly outside of the state. It's hilarious how Sacramento thinks it has any bearing outside of its state's boarders.
Re: (Score:2)
No drawing. No attempts at ascii art.
No using journalism to try and get federal protection for freedom of the press... and speech.
Creating a funny gif is not protected federally.
Funny art is banned in CA.
A page of printed ascii art sent as a letter in the mail will also be considered networking political deep fake art.
No printing political flip books.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, this seems like a sensible law.
No it doesn't. It's a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment. And I can't wait for them to fucking lose in court the first time they try to use it against someone. It also flagrantly violates equal protection with the exceptions it grants to those with a license to broadcast.
However, before you rush to disagree because you think such a law can only work to the detriment of conservatives everywhere, think of it this way: What if during the 2020 elections somebody rebased a deep-faked a pissing tape of Donald 'the 2nd coming of god' Trump?
Nobody who actually supports the first amendment would care, you dumbass.
What a laugh riot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
California, the land of fakery
I want to join the fake police.
"Excuse me ma'am. Are those real?"
What's the point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No worries (Score:2, Funny)
After PG&E intentionally shuts down the power grid because "fires" nobody will be able to see fakes anyway.
Well, that's fine then (Score:2)
News media will be exempt from the requirement, as will videos made for satire or parody
We all know that the news media and the existing politically appointed power structure that would adjudicate any disputes are perfectly unbiased, so this will be great!
Too bad.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Will that (Score:3)
A funny meme pic?
A still frame from a video wth political words added?
When does the fake stop and the CA gov approved political satire start?
Is a cartoon not art? A series of frames in a gif?
How much art has to be added by an artist before speech is filly protected from CA "again"?
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it will be similar to questions of libel and copyright infringement. The court will look at the context, e.g. in the middle of a comedy TV is pretty clearly satire, in a Facebook ad made to look like a news report it's probably intended to mislead.
... only half of what you see! (Score:2)
My father always used to say:
"Believe nothing that you read, and only half of what you see!"
That advice seems to have aged particularly well, so I now have passed it on to my children.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I'm guessing there are no educated people in your family, then...
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't read the news, you're uninformed.
If you do read the news, you're misinformed.
Riddle solution: Build your own conclusions by aggregating sources, don't be a parrot of a singular one.
Re: (Score:2)
My father always used to say:
"Believe nothing that you read, and only half of what you see!"
If you are listening to the news, you are playing a game of telephone and losing. At least with the written word, there's some chance someone, somewhere, will get it right.
What about shallow fakes? (Score:2)
Would publishing a transcript that has an entire page replaced by ellipses in order to misconstrue what was said count as a fake? Mueller did the same with President Trump's personal lawyer in an attempt to show "obstruction" that didn't exist. Would that not count as a fake? How about leaving off most of the conversation around the "good people on both sides" hoax?
The point is that politics is full of lies, and picking out one particular type as if it is something special is counter-productive.
Deepfakes are dangerous, period. (Score:2)
Because they can be used to frame you for something you didn't do.
I don't care so much about politicians as I worry about myself and my loved ones. And I don't have the deep pockets and power attorneys that politicians have to defend themselves.
Freedom of Expression is an *instrumental* good. (Score:2)
In other words, it is valuable not in itself, but for what it accomplishes: open public discourse.
A deepfake that is presented as authentic undermines public discourse. It allows your enemies to literally put words in your mouth. This in effect robs you of your right to participate in the public debate by forcing you to deal with the consequences of words and actions you never spoke or did.
Personally, if it were up to me, I wouldn't ban deepfakes, I'd require labeling, the removal or omission of which su
Deep fake porn... (Score:2)
The report notes that Newsom also signed a law that would ban pornographic deepfakes made without consent.
Prediction: Within 3 years celebrities start licensing their likeness to porn producers openly. Within 5 years celebrities start promoting their own porn brands.
Lies (Score:2)
Hey, California: you forgot to ban LIES!!
Come on, do it BAN all LIES! It's easy to do. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do it!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Friend" and "foe" are poorly named, they should be "people I find interesting" and "people whose posts I'd rather not read"
Re: (Score:3)
I normally wouldn't point this out to someone with such a low uid, but it just took me 5 minutes to find that option again since it wasn't
Re:i would like to thread jack to request (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to be able to remove useless trolls who's mothers probably had them castrated them at a early age. Their fathers have surely told them they would never be good enough and when they attempt to get a date I'm sure people just laugh or throw up. Probably throw up. But seriously slashdot. GIVE US THE ABILITY TO SILENCE THESE CRAPTASTIC LOSERS.
Look at your post. You are the useless troll. You are the one full of rage and hate. You are the one making "craptastic" off-topic posts. You are the one poisoning online discourse. You are the one who can't behave in a civilised manner and who has to resort to nonsensical childish insults.
Look at yourself. You are the problem. You are everything that is wrong with the internet discussion. And the ultimate irony is that, despite your own appalling behavior, you're trying to get other people silenced. You're a typical crybully who viciously attacks other people but then runs to jack when they have their feelings hurt. Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to know what they really did in California, those lying shite weasals. They just legalised double speak. Politicians spews double speak, you the active citizen call them out, they claim you pointing out the double speak is not what they meant and off to jail you go. They can spew out all kinds of shite and you call them out, well then you are "false, damaging impression of a politician's words or actions", according to the politicians own bullshit interpretation of their double speak waffle. Not fa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They really didn't, but you'd have to read the bill to understand that because the summary doesn't give all the details.
The bill prohibits "materially deceptive audio or visual media" and defines that as "an image or audio or video recording of a candidateâ(TM)s appearance, speech, or conduct that has been intentionally manipulated in a manner such that the image or audio or video recording would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be authentic and would cause a reasonable person to have a fundame
Mod up please (Score:2)
Mod up please
The conspiracy theories being pedaled under this article are making me crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
"I would like to be able to remove useless trolls who's mothers probably had them castrated them at a early age. Their fathers have surely told them they would never be good enough and when they attempt to get a date I'm sure people just laugh or throw up. Probably throw up. "
It sounds like you are the one with the issues.
Aside from APK's hate spam and the swastika guy, your post is one of the worst I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Seek help.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dafuq? If California is going to take away people's First Amendment right to free speech in the name of preventing "fakes" from propagandizing people into voting one way or another, why in the world would you explicitly allow NEWS MEDIA to push fakes?!?
Fake news is a real thing people. They're basically waving this fact right in our faces."
Reposting to thwart blatant moderation abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
"I noticed that little point too. The MainStream Media has a license to lie."
Reposting to thwart blatant moderation abuse.
Re: News media will be exempt from the requirement (Score:5, Informative)
The text CLEARLY STATES:
The bill would provide exemptions for all of the following: (1) a radio or television broadcasting station, including a cable or satellite television operator, programmer, or producer, when it is paid to broadcast materially deceptive audio or visual media, (2) materially deceptive audio or visual media that constitutes satire or parody, (3) a radio or television broadcasting station, including a cable or satellite television operator, programmer, or producer, that broadcasts materially deceptive audio or visual media as part of a bona fide newscast, news interview, news documentary, or on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events, if the broadcast clearly acknowledges through content or a disclosure that there are questions about the authenticity of the materially deceptive audio or visual media, and (4) an internet website, or a regularly published newspaper, magazine, or other periodical of general circulation, including an internet or electronic publication, that routinely carries news and commentary of general interest, and that publishes the materially deceptive audio or visual media, if the publication clearly states that the materially deceptive audio or visual media does not accurately represent the speech or conduct of the candidate.
In short, the exemption only applies to ANY media that CLEARLY discloses that they are either in the business of broadcasting fakes, or disclose SOMEWHERE that the material's authenticity is questionable.
People need to learn to fucking read.
Re: (Score:2)
No, read number (1). They don't have to disclose anything when they're paid to do it which broadcasting is what the media is paid to do. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are articles of exemption that can be read separately.
Re: News media will be exempt from the requiremen (Score:2)
Why is no one pointing out the obvious? Why does California think they can just pass a law and magically we have prevented the problem. It was already illegal for foreign governments to get involved in elections. And yet we had a lot of Facebook ads paid for by a Russian company based out of Texas. Why the fuck does California think This is going to do anything other than tell their idiot citizens that they are actually doing something. All they are doing is typing something on paper. That is like passing a
Re: (Score:2)
Now Facebook ads were paid for by a US company owned by a Russian company and that is completely legal. It's how most all of the candidates are supported by and get funding from foreign governments who like their politics. That was the most ridiculous thing about the whole Trump hunt, most of the Clinton contributors have big foreign interests funneling money into them as well.
We are the largest economy in the world and unquestionably the most powerful military in the world. EVERY government tries to influe
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for posting this. Given how many falsehoods and fake videos are tweeted and posted on social media daily, maybe, if a campaign group is caught creating or distributing damaging deep fakes, that their candidate be eliminated from the ballot in that state?
Re: (Score:2)
"(1) a radio or television broadcasting station, including a cable or satellite television operator, programmer, or producer, when it is paid to broadcast materially deceptive audio or visual media"
No, it applies to ANY media being paid to display something fake right in the first position. This exemption doesn't require disclosing anything.
From provision 3:
" if the broadcast clearly acknowledges through content or a disclosure that there are questions about the authenticity of the materially deceptive audi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they definitely are not always marked. Are you seriously claiming you've never watched a tv show with nothing but a fade before a stream of commercials play? Also it is paid content, it doesn't have to be a separate advertising video as written, the media outlet could be paid to present it as a story and it would be covered under that exemption.
Re: (Score:2)
EITHER WAY, that is not the same as this supposed "threat" to free speech of having to be considered a "news media". There's no need for some "registry".
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not. The entity doesn't have to disclose it was paid to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No because you'd only need to do if someone first detected the fake, reported it, and authorities decided to pursue an investigation and in that case they are disclosing to investigators who would close the case. At no point are the VIEWERS who are actually mislead informed. Even if they were informed at some later time the political damage would be done.
This really isn't that difficult. Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity is paid to present a false story based on a deepfake (or their networks are paid to have th
Re: (Score:2)
Underrated
Re: (Score:3)
You both need to read. The very first exemption he quoted allows for paid fake news without disclosure. The third allows for the news agency to knowing create a fake and give some kind of misleading note like "we are still vetting this but here is the coverage from the interview" or "Ms Pelosi has not yet commented on the authenticity of this video" or any number of blatant fake news efforts which are designed to mislead the voting public.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically they outlawed memes because the left can't meme.
Yea, that really does look like the goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no.
"The People" are NOT mentioned at all in the First Amendment. Just "Congress". As in "Congress shall make no law..."
Not that I disagree with your basic point....
Re: (Score:2)
"How do they determine if a website is part of the "news media"? Is California going to start issuing "Journalism IDs" with "License to Lie" stamped on them?
The First Amendment states rights of the "The People", not rights of "The Journalists". There is no constitutional basis to give one group of people more rights to speak and publish than any other people.
No court should allow this law to stand."
Buried by moderation abuse. Please mod back up.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess who pays all the taxes? Young people. The old folks vote themselves more Social Security and Medicare benefits at the expense of those young people who don't vote.
This is patently untrue for the vast majority of people 60+. I'm sorry if your grandparents were shit, but most other people's are the unconditional-loving, generally selfless sort voting with their kids' and grandkids' futures in mind using their well over half-century of life experience and knowledge from arguably a better quality education.
By the way, guess who was paying ALL the taxes for all the decades before you were a gleam in mama's eye? Guess whose money, in CDs etc deposited in Wall St. and the b
Re: (Score:2)
GP is absolutely right, but you don't have to attribute that to malice on the part of our grandparents. The reality is most people today are not financially savvy, and neither were average people in the past. In the 1950s when the eldest today were getting started in their careers, FICA taxes ranged from 2% to 6.9% (that includes the employer portion). Now are you a financially savvy person if you think that saving 2% of your paycheck and investing it in low yield bonds will fund your retirement? No. How ab
Re: (Score:2)
They were "paying ALL the taxes" but they weren't actually paying enough, and the people in the government managing the money weren't doing a good job either.
You're 1/2 right. SS was started in the 1930's, so EVERYONE collecting it today (not counting SSDI) really DID pay ALL the taxes, and, yes, they paid plenty for that SS check.
What happened was that the people in government decided that since raising taxes was unpopular, they could just BORROW all that money coming in for SS, with no actual plan for paying it back, and just go on a spending spree with it. Which gave them power and helped their business friends.
Don't blame people that did their civic duty for
Re: (Score:2)
"Guess whose money, in CDs etc deposited in Wall St. and the banks over the decades, that they are using for your new car loan, that mortgage, etc etc?"
Mostly the top 0.1% by wealth. I'm not guessing.
"This is patently untrue for the vast majority of people 60+. I'm sorry if your grandparents were shit, but most other people's are the unconditional-loving, generally selfless sort voting with their kids' and grandkids' futures in mind using their well over half-century of life experience and knowledge from ar
Right, it has to be grand conspiracy... (Score:2)
Of course this has to be a grand Leftist conspiracy! Why should we ever take at face value something that the other side is doing, right?
If this law is used to extensively (as opposed to a single mistake) take down real content it will pretty quickly become public knowledge as content creators complain and anyone found doing so will catch a real shit show both legally and publicly once news inevitably gets out. In other words, the scenario you describe is incredibly implausible as it would completely backfi
Re: (Score:2)
Fool me once. . . shame on you. .shame on me.
Fool me twice. .
The right has been screaming to the hills for a couple years now about the lefts incessant attempts to take down anything they disagree with, usually calling it "hate speech" in one form or another. It has gotten so bad that everyone snickers and winks whenever the term "hate speech" is used as everyone knows that it is just code words for "anyone to the right of me". Why would this be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
"It has gotten so bad that everyone snickers and winks whenever the term "hate speech" is used as everyone knows that it is just code words for "anyone to the right of me". "
You live in a bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it's a stupid law and the lawmakers are stupid for pushing it, but that isn't so different from most laws or lawmakers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's clear since the law sunsets in 2023 that this will have to be reauthorized every four years. Trump isn't re-elected. Every video critical of the Demoncat will be taken down under religious freedoms exemptions and then the lawsuit will be decided some time in 2021. On the other hand M&M will have a license to produce deep takes without any remorse.
This IS an attack on free music. It's absolutely clear California and Democrats aren't going to vote Republican anyway.
I sort of agree and disagree with you on this one, why not make it eight years? Or one year, that would be enough. As Abraham Lincoln said, only time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
But, the process IS the punishment. It may be illegal, but that is no consolation when you're having to pay lawyers to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
These are separate exemptions not additional conditions or clarification of the previous exemptions. It is misstated though, any traditional media source which is paid to show you a deepfake can present it as true with no disclosure under the first exemption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well no, some speech doesn't get 1st amendment "classic" protection. Defamation/slander/libel is an example.
You absolutely have protection for ALL speech. No one can legally stop you from speaking.
You CAN be held accountable for the direct results of that speech.
Re:Selective Enforcement (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on who is going to be the incumbent. If the risk is that a Republican gets in charge, everything has to be stopped, including free speech.
This will have a chilling effect on free speech this election season because everything critical will be labeled deep fake - Bernies USSR video, Pocahontas' corruption and psychopathy (which are already deeply buried by the media) and then the lawsuits will extended into 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Pointing out an exemption to allows the news media to intentionally report false and misleading information to voters falls under "overrated?"
Re: (Score:2)
Libel and slander are not protected under the First Amendment.
Yes, they are. You can be sued for the consequences. You can't be restricted from going out and repeating the libel and slander the very next day. You can't be compelled to apologize.
Oh, I'm sure some asshat judge will issue an unconstitutional order to that effect, and will hold you in contempt of court until you comply. Such a judge should be thrown off the bench, violently.