Hey, so not trying to troll... I feel like that has to be stated when talking about this stuff.

I get that weaponizing revenge porn someone sent you can be damaging.

But I don't get what this law is trying to do.

Is Hustler v. Falwell still valid?

> In the case, Hustler magazine ran a full-page parody ad against televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr., depicting him as an incestuous drunk who had sex with his mother in an outhouse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

As long as it's labeled "AI Generated" in the corner, does that make it OK?

What if a person wanted to generate porn of Eva Braun & Adolf Hitler -- who knows, just for the shock value... would that be banned? Even if it's a snuff film?

I can think of a bunch of things that aren't full on traditional porn... can I still make a video of Katy Perry eating a banana? Can I show Hugh Jackman making out with John C. McGinley (as Dr. Cox, of course)? Or what if I wanted a video of Elizabeth Hurley doing ASMR in a bikini, or in a burqa?

Falls back to, "What's porn, anyway?" is it still "I know it when I see it?" / "Anything that gives a judge an erection?" Or is it anything involving using AI to draw people? I make a drawing on Civitai... can someone come up and say, "That looks like my great aunt Trudy, take it down now!"

We've had Photoshop forever... I get that AI is maybe (emphasis on maybe) a bit more realistic than Photoshop. But to me, a law like this feels like it'll have unintended and far reaching connotations for how we use AI to create scenes from each of our own vivid and unique imaginations.