Comment by joshstrange | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshstrange | Hacker News Reader

> A Washington Post piece recounts how a small-town school teacher lost her job after students’ parents learned about AI porn made in the teacher’s likeness without her consent. Just a few months ago, a 22-year-old was sentenced to six months in jail for taking underage womens’ photos from social media and using them to create sexually explicit deepfakes.

Following the link [0]:

> People viewing explicit images of you without your consent — whether those images are real or fake — is a form of sexual violence, said Kristen Zaleski, director of forensic mental health at Keck Human Rights Clinic at the University of Southern California. Victims are often met with judgment and confusion from their employers and communities, she said. For example, Zaleski said she’s already worked with a small-town schoolteacher who lost her job after parents learned about AI porn made in the teacher’s likeness without her consent.

> “The parents at the school didn’t understand how that could be possible,” Zaleski said. “They insisted they didn’t want their kids taught by her anymore.”

Holy shit that's fucked up. It wouldn't be right but I'd be hard pressed not to create deep-fakes of the people who fired me and/or the parents to show them how bullshit it is if I was fired for something I had no connection to and was actually the victim of.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/13/ai-porn...

> People viewing explicit images of you without your consent — whether those images are real or fake — is a form of sexual violence.

What if you imagine it? What if you describe it to your friend? What if you sketch it on your tablet and then delete it?

That's thotcrime.

I am sure there is a line that is difficult to draw between what is ok and what is not, but can we not at least agree that there are two very different extremes easily separated by any such line:

- most folks probably will agree that imagining sexual content with your teacher and keeping it to yourself is fine

- most folks probably will also agree that making photorealistic fake porn of your teacher and spreading it around is akin to defamation or sexual harassment

Let's take care of the extremes, then we can worry about the difficult middle.

Yea but the spreading around is the important part. Should just creating the content be illegal? Right now it kinda is but I don't find that to be quite consistent.

What about talking with somebody else about wanting to have sex with the teacher, even the whole class?

I'm asking on purpose to figure out where the line is

I do not know. However, we can take care of 90% of the problems in this context without having an answer to your question, because most cases are far from the dividing line.

The crux is in the distribution. Does distribution enter your scenarios?

Imagining it? That can't be distributed, so no issue here. Describing it to friend? I think it's no issue, as the setting is private, and words are ephemeral. Sketch it on tablet? As long as no one sees it, it's fine.

Now, let's spice these up with distribution. What if you describe it not to a friend, but to an audience at a stand-up club? Or in a tweet? Or in a written publication? What if your sketch gets photographed, and put online? What if it's a semi-known person, and a tabloid gets ahold of the photo?

I think the first and second scenarios differ a lot. And that while both can be likened to sexual violence, the second group is what does real damage.

I agree that distribution is the key. I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes. Distribution is where you are really being immoral. And if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear.

>I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes.

That's because it largely is. It's also highly unenforceable, which raises the suspicion: how would a proponent intend to enforce it? By implementing surveillance? Or would this be just used to suppress political opponents for example?

>if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear.

I think if law would exist, then it would define these scenarios. I feel like there are a lot of already existing situations that are similar, and also legally defined. For example a legal firearm can be stolen from somebody, or accessed by a child, and some harm is done, then in some cases, the original owner is also implicated[0]. Or with drugs, possession and distribution are usually separated, even in the case of a completely banned substance, with distribution usually being a heavier category.

[0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-pun...

Similar question actually: If I fill my private notebook with hateful tirades against Johm Oliver, and someone finds my notebook and publishes the content online, am I liable for slander or insult?

That's a very good question. I'm not experienced with law, but found an article, and they say that the in case of defamation, it's the publisher that's liable. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/republishing-someone-else-...

Disagree. The line is with intent. What you intend to do with the creation is what usually dictates the legal ramifications. This is of course hard (or impossible) to prove, so demonstrating actions to distribute is a good proxy to intent.

Intent plays a part, but you can do no harm with a lot of intent, and also cause a lot of harm without any intent.

>What you intend to do with the creation is what usually dictates the legal ramifications.

Disagree. Legal stuff is first concerned with what happened, and just secondarily with the why. This separates murder and manslaughter for example in the US, but in either case, the main thing is that someone died because of another person. If it was only intent, and no harm done, not even an attempt, there wouldn't be a case in the first place.

Now where the moral line is, that's another question, and intent indeed does play a huge part there. In Christianity for example, you can sin without even doing anything, as God is concerned not just with outside actions, but with a person's inner life too.

Valid points.

> Legal stuff is first concerned with what happened, and just secondarily with the why.

I guess it's more nuanced than we have space for here, lol. :) I was thinking of 'possession with intent to supply' for narcotics. The penalty is much greater for that than simple possession.

I think you are correct though, I'm mixing up legal and moral concern.

Seems like a clear case of wrongful termination.

At will employment being the law of the land, the only way to actually get a case of wrongful termination is to document that you’re firing the person for one of the few reasons which are unlawful (race, religion, sex, origin, disability, medical condition, or age, as well as additional restrictions the state may have in place).

“The parents are complaining and we’re chickenshits” is almost certainly not an unlawful reason, if they even bother justifying the dismissal (which most employers don’t).

I'm a little surprised this teacher didn't have the support of a union. I was under the impression a lot of teachers were unionised in the United States.

There are 4 millions teachers in the united states, or about 2.5% of the total work force. There are a lot of small-town school teachers, with a subset that are not in a union.

In Texas it's illegal for them to form a union.

Indeed, but it's not just an issue with some obtuse administrator. School boards are heavily politicized these days, and if complaining parents were told that there was no good legal basis to terminate someone, it's entirely possible that they'd crowd the school board meeting and make a big stink about it.

Factuality does not matter to a lot of people.

Yeah, it's clear that this teacher cannot teach any more but they should at least receive a buyout.

Sadly this teacher can't teach anymore but these parents can still parent. I wonder what happens if somebody makes some deep fake porn of these parents, will they divorce from their spouses, no longer be accepted in their communities? What if everybody's deep fakes are made so that everybody gets the same treatment; would that make people sink in that this is just it, just something that can happen to anybody without any fault of their own?

Karens have unlimited capacity for hypocrisy.

Wilhoit's law This quotation is often incorrectly attributed to Francis M. Wilhoit: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

Yet another example of why the uniquely American institution that is the fractal of hyper-local jurisdictions is harmful. Education should be run by the state, like it is in normal countries.

If they told the parents they were photoshopped instead of AI made, would that have changed anything?

Curious if we change the language used if that changes how people think of it...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com