re: Gavin Newsom has banned political ’memes’ in California.

Posted by Sus-Scrofa

Member since Feb 2013

9692 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:21 am to Placekicker

Newsom is about to be overrun with Memes.

Just an absolute crap ton of memes that a prosecutor could never follow up on.

Posted by Houag80

Member since Jul 2019

14475 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:21 am to Vacherie Saint

Dripping dem apologist = big pile of poo

This post was edited on 9/18/24 at 8:22 am

Posted by cypher

Member since Sep 2014

4278 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:22 am to Sus-Scrofa

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

2 ...

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

450126 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:22 am to dafif

quote:
Fortunately the long arm statutes require a direct connection to the state

You cannot create a meme in Florida and post on X and anticipate being hauled into court In California

How do people in California access these memes without their devices accepting the 1s and 0s within the jurisdictional boundaries of California?

Courts have ruled this can subject you to jurisdiction outside of your home forum.

Posted by Houag80

Member since Jul 2019

14475 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:22 am to cypher

Here come the faggensteins

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

450126 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:23 am to moneyg

quote:
Your bias had led you to believe that this is only a MAGA issue.

Your bias leads you to post incorrect statements like above.

Nowhere have I said this is only a MAGA issue, yet you incorrectly interpret it this way, for reasons I stated previously.

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

450126 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:24 am to llfshoals

quote:
If you don’t think you’re projecting those in your “objective” analysis the first person you lie to is yourself

Explain to me the biases (both internal and external) in saying the following:

quote:
The AI stuff is going to take a long time for courts and society to deal with, from IP to the ownership of the "speech".

Posted by SDVTiger

Cabo San Lucas

Member since Nov 2011

86721 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:25 am to cypher

Arent you the idiot in the OT war thread that has posted fake BBC news on the War for over 2yrs now

Now you bring the heat with the Krassenstein bro

Posted by dafif

Member since Jan 2019

7022 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:26 am to SlowFlowPro

quote:
How do people in California access these memes without their devices accepting the 1s and 0s within the jurisdictional boundaries of California?

You are an idiot and do not know long arm jurisdiction law so shut up.

I have argued this at least 20 times.

Merely having the ability to access the information does not give consent to jurisdiction

World Wide Volkswagen much

Posted by JimEverett

Member since May 2020

1291 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:26 am to Placekicker

Why does it only target social media companies? Are tv stations, newspapers, magazines, political parties less "dangerous" to the public in using AI generated images during a political cycle?

Posted by TDTOM

Member since Jan 2021

20827 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:29 am to JimEverett

There is no way my posting a meme opens me up to legal action in CA.

Posted by moneyg

Member since Jun 2006

59232 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro

quote:
Your bias leads you to post incorrect statements like above.

No. It was you specifically calling out MAGA (twice) without mentioning anyone else.

If not for your previous posts one could logically just blame it on your poor communication skills.

In reality, we both know it was a passive aggressive emotional response by you because you are being attacked in this thread and you are defensive.

Posted by EvrybodysAllAmerican

Member since Apr 2013

12046 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:35 am to Placekicker

"its that easy to govern"

Umm. Not if you're doing it the right way.

Posted by Giantkiller

the internet.

Member since Sep 2007

23317 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:35 am to Placekicker

I was listening to some podcast about a PAC robocall using Joe Biden's voice telling people not to vote or some shite. The person who did it didn't get jailtime but had a $6 million dollar fine imposed.

Posted by Fun Bunch

New Orleans

Member since May 2008

123423 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:39 am to Placekicker

Obviously think this is blatantly unconstitutional.

however, with how amazing deep fakes are getting with AI, its something that needs to be discussed. Can someone do a perfect deep fake of a person doing the most vile things and hide behind "free speech"? A normal person could obviously sue for defamation. But what about a politician? Its sort of grey to me.

2 ...

Posted by finchmeister08

Member since Mar 2011

37885 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:47 am to Fun Bunch

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Posted by SuperOcean

Member since Jun 2022

4585 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:49 am to Placekicker

Do we need to bring in the esteemed constitutional scholar Dr Sucgon Deeznuts for a refresher ?

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

450126 posts

Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:50 am to dafif

quote:
Merely having the ability to access the information does not give consent to jurisdiction

If the information is "directed" to the jurisdiction, then it can, theoretically.

Courts are moving more towards establishing personal jurisdiction for social media posts that enter other jurisdictions. They're just working out the finer details on how to define the requirements for personal jurisdiction.

Here is a discussion on the evolving standards in the 6th circuit., which summarizes it succinctly:

quote:
As social media use moves headlong into ubiquity, jurisprudence regarding courts’ personal jurisdiction over social media users will do its best to evolve alongside it.