snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 14 February 2013, 07:27 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,444
Icon204 Politician moves to make vulgar Photoshopping illegal

A state lawmaker in Georgia is so perturbed that someone used Photoshop to put his head on a porn star's body that he now wants any kind of lewd Photoshopping to be banned. "No one has a right to make fun of anyone," he says.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...pping-illegal/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 14 February 2013, 08:32 PM
crescent crescent is offline
 
 
Join Date: 13 August 2008
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,518
Default

Much like debates over the Second Amendment, I think this will cause people to make an effort to exercise their right. The right to make fun of Earnest G. Smith.

I think this will turn out to be counter-productive to Smith's stated goal.

Right now, I'm too tired to think of a clever way to exercise that right myself. I trust that the internet will take car of it for me.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 14 February 2013, 09:26 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Would it be a first amendment issue? Could it not (depending on the context of the shopped image) fall under slander (or libel, or whichever a picture would be)?

Noted in his earlier attempt:

Quote:
It seems that Smith first had the idea last year in order to protect a girl who had been subject to some form of online bullying.
The idea then was to make it a misdemeanor to cause "an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction."
I suspect many more people would be for it (rather than generally mocking this man) were the issue about some fourteen year old who's head was shopped onto a naked body and then put up on the internet.

It would be illegal in some places I guess given that some places have the absurd law of "Fake child pornography counts as real child pornography" but it obviously is more complex than simply a fake image given that it uses a real, and unwilling, participant as the identifying person.

So yea, while it's easy to mock the stuffy old politician for being anti-technology and anti-smut the law itself could be presented in a far more convincing way.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 14 February 2013, 10:05 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Would it be a first amendment issue? Could it not (depending on the context of the shopped image) fall under slander (or libel, or whichever a picture would be)?
Anything to do with communication is a First Amendment issue in the US. It also could be slander. The First Amendment puts almost no restrictions on slander law as to private individuals. There are restrictions to what is actionable defamation if the person is a public figure, such as a politician or a celebrity. Then the false and injurious statement must be known to the speaker to be false and made 'with malice.'

I would think that faked photos would actually make a case easier, though. If I said that Nancy Pelosi is a porn actress, the damages would be minimal because everyone would know that I was just spouting nonsense. Also malice would be hard to establish because it is just spouting nonsense (malice for public figures requires more than just saying something bad and false spitefully). But if I went to the trouble of photoshopping her head convincingly into porn photos or films, then a lot more people would say 'maybe there's something to this' and thus there would be an actionable amount of damage. And unlike just saying nonsense, attempting to gin up false proof shows true malice - a demonstrated desire to actually hurt that person's reputation.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14 February 2013, 10:13 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,283
Roll eyes

Then, boy oh boy, is The Daily Show in a heap of trouble.

~Psihala
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 14 February 2013, 10:14 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,190
Default

I think a law making it a criminal violation will run into the First Amendment. Individuals can still sue for damages -- but if you're a public figure, it's definitely an uphill battle.

(I would think it would also depend on any claims made by the person who created or is circulating the photo. If I passed around a photo I claimed was, say, an authentic picture of John Boehner engaged in an illicit sexual act, I would clearly be working to damage his reputation. If I used the exact same photo in an obvious parody, that would be protected -- see Hustler Magazine v. Fallwell.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Etymology of vulgar term snopes Language 7 11 May 2012 06:22 AM
Photoshopping before photoshop crescent Fauxtography 2 04 August 2010 05:00 PM
Windstorm Moves Hay Bales Jenn Fauxtography 16 12 January 2010 08:00 PM
The rock that moves people snopes Snopes Spotting 0 05 July 2009 11:31 PM
When a ‘Duplicate’ Family Moves In snopes Medical 3 24 September 2007 01:48 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.