Hacker News Reader

INAL, not legal advice:

The definition of digital forgery references the existing legal code's definition of "Intimate visual depiction", which is defined here: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6...

So if you take an otherwise legal picture of someone, and add a filter which, eg, gives them a big forehead, you're fine. However, if you take a picture of and use it to create realistic porn of that person, that can sue.

View on HN

This discussion section has convinced me that high school civics courses need to teach how to read bills. We’ve got (lots of!) people assuming that legislators’ statements of their own motivations represent the law itself; that if something’s not in the text of a bill that explicitly modifies another law then it must just not exist (… try the law it’s modifying) and tons of other mistakes; and in general most of the discussion being about as silly as one might expect if the text of the law were secret rather than readily available and not even that hard to read.

Plus all the usual not understanding how the government, and especially the first amendment, works, which is a separate but also serious problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com