Many jurisdictions have started banning nonconsensual intimate imagery, including the US (in several states as well as federally under the TAKE IT DOWN Act).
Maybe. For photographs, it’s definitely not unconstitutional to make it illegal, because people have a right to privacy (4th amendment sort of, and 10th because they’re state laws).
For Trump, and for non-photographic media, it’s a little different. For one, he’s a very public figure. Another, you could argue it’s artistic, satirical, or critical of him.
Now if you were doing it maliciously, with intent to harass him personally, then yeah that would probably be considered not protected and carry civil or criminal liability.
Well, the constitutionality will need to be tested, sure, but the US first amendment is not absolute, even if it is sweeping relative to other countries.
Also, the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world. Plenty of other countries have put similar laws on the books over the last 2-3 years.
How would that work? If someone drew a photorealistic painting of pretty much the same, under what legal claim could Swift “most likely win”?
Many jurisdictions have started banning nonconsensual intimate imagery, including the US (in several states as well as federally under the TAKE IT DOWN Act).
That seems recently signed into law (ie, untested in courts) & patently unconstitutional. Would that law prohibit obscene depictions of Trump?
Maybe. For photographs, it’s definitely not unconstitutional to make it illegal, because people have a right to privacy (4th amendment sort of, and 10th because they’re state laws).
For Trump, and for non-photographic media, it’s a little different. For one, he’s a very public figure. Another, you could argue it’s artistic, satirical, or critical of him.
Now if you were doing it maliciously, with intent to harass him personally, then yeah that would probably be considered not protected and carry civil or criminal liability.
As is Swift.
Is that the standard? Wouldn’t an act of harassment (as legally defined) rather than only intent of it be a required element?
The argument seems weak for a fake image of a public figure.
Well, the constitutionality will need to be tested, sure, but the US first amendment is not absolute, even if it is sweeping relative to other countries.
Also, the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world. Plenty of other countries have put similar laws on the books over the last 2-3 years.
It’s pretty clear: strict scrutiny.
Would the jurisdiction for a case between a US citizen & US company not be the US?