> If the deep fake is of a real person, there is still reputation damage to the person featured.
Only if the material was distributed by the individual. If the material remained on the individual's computer, I just don't understand how someone can argue that harm has occurred.
Like, maybe there is an argument that some non-zero level of "harm" occurred due to perceived normalization of untoward behavior, but is this worth allowing a slippery slope with no immediately apparent bottom? Where will our benevolent government draw the line on what kind of thought crime is permissible?
It's getting really tiring that the only people routinely coming to bat over these kinds of issues are cybersecurity professionals and privacy advocates; the average person still seems to buy into this propaganda and it harms everyone in the end, as our collective ability to effectively fight bureaucratic tyranny becomes systematically reduced.