From [1]:

> In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hustler magazine, holding that a parody ad published in the magazine depicting televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr. as an incestuous drunk, was protected speech since Falwell was a public figure and the parody could not have been reasonably considered believable.

The post you're replying to explicitly talks about convincing deepfakes. Also, Falwell was a televangelist and political commentator, not a senator. So I don't think this court case is a good example.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

No, deepfakes are relatively new. It's a specific term meaning a fake video produced with ANNs, not any type of picture that's been faked or photoshopped. The case you reference is a just and paste job, not a deepfake.

I don’t think the method of producing the fake is important in terms of court rulings.

It kinda is though, if the network is trained on the source material itself. For example if I take the source material and move a few pixels, is that still the source material? What if I flip the video, which is technically moving every single pixel, that's still the a copyright issue even if the video is mirrored. The network is basically taking the pixels of the original content, learning from it, and creating a filtered version.

I think you misunderstood my point. I meant that it doesn’t matter if someone modified it by hand or if it was done using a neural network.

I didn't say it was, I simply corrected the definition of a word.

> If the 1988 supreme court wouldn't protect the reputation of a national religious leader, they aren't going to do so for politicians today.

Well that gave me a good chuckle! The fact that a supreme judge is appointed by the sitting president and confirmed by the Senate means that they can push whatever dogma the ruling party has.