Lawmaker Wants to Make "Lewd Photoshopping" Illegal

[CriticalMiss]

Next up he will make 'yo momma' jokes illegal. They are hurtful, mean spirited and often untrue. After that will be the 'poopoo head act', criminalising toddlers who say horrible things to others.

 

[T3hSource]

Phahahah,this is truly pathetic to any avid internet user.Even people who only use facebook on their phones would think this is sad.

 

[Legion]

If you are decent enough at it to make it seem real, then it could cause all sorts of issues when crimes are involved. Think of it in a sense where photographic evidence is used in a trial, if you are a pro at this, you could create false evidence, or false alibi's.

Which is why there are already laws against falsifying evidence (be it photographic or not). Well, at least where I am from using photoshopped images as evidence earns you more than just a stern look from the judge.

Like I said, if you are decent enough for it to seem real, as in nobody can prove it is a fake. That is why I mean that it could make sense to prevent people from doing it at all in the first place. It's not like people have any justifiable need to photoshop images of other people without their permission, so claiming it's a violation of rights, is like saying spreading lies (slander and libel) is against rights.

That is not to say I agree with the guy completely, but it is something that is very open to abuse.

 

[Ken Sapp]

If you are decent enough at it to make it seem real, then it could cause all sorts of issues when crimes are involved. Think of it in a sense where photographic evidence is used in a trial, if you are a pro at this, you could create false evidence, or false alibi's.

Which is why there are already laws against falsifying evidence (be it photographic or not). Well, at least where I am from using photoshopped images as evidence earns you more than just a stern look from the judge.

OT:

I'm starting to wonder if outlawing politicians wouldn't be a more sensible bill.

I second your proposal. Quick let's get the bill drafted and bring it up on the House floor....

 

[KeyMaster45]

I suddenly have so much work to do. If you all would excuse me, I have a date with google image search, my copy of photoshop, and this asshat's blog.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

Goddammit why do people keep doing this!

Do not, under any circumstances, bring any attention to things which you are embarrassed or offended by on the internet! It only makes things 100X worse!

 

[Doom972]

Is that the body of a gay pornstar? Because he seems a little butthurt.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

The funny thing about rights in America is that they only extend so far as not to infringe upon the rights of others. Everyone always forgets that part. You have the right to say whatever you want... to mock and criticize and decry... but there's an indefinite point at which we all know it crosses a line. The letter of the law doesn't specify, because it's not something one can define mathematically... not yet anyways... but there's a point at which your mocking and criticism become harassment and defamation.

And this is a pretty obvious, blatant infringement of the fellow's rights. In his shoes, I'd be rightly pissed as well. There was no other intent beyond being inflammatory and crude... and congrats on that. Mission accomplished. But you've just plastered a picture of a man's head on a porn star's body all over the internet, to be mocked and ridiculed by millions. I'm pretty sure that violates the spirit of the law entitling that man to a life free of persecution and oppression, in which he can pursue happiness to his heart's content somewhere.


That being said, there are already laws to handle this sort of thing. We've got libel. We've got copyright laws. We've got laws being made against the use of the internet to bully and victimize people. We've got all kinds of laws which could be conveniently used to cover this incident and make an example of a dick move by some jackass with a point he thinks it vitally important he make on his blog. And you know what? I hope someone does make an example of him... because the internet is full of pricks and assholes... and I'm tired of seeing unpopular peoples' faces plastered on them artificially. But we don't need another new, poorly worded law that makes it dangerous to parody or mock people. We need to re-word and retool the laws already extant in a way that clearly identifies their meaning. That way, it's not such a big deal to prosecute someone for something like this when it clearly violates the spirit of the law, even if it technically falls within the letter.

Is the guy someone I'd vote for or like? Hell no. But as an American citizen, I understand all-too-well that the rights and freedoms we have in this nation are precisely those which we continue to believe in. I may not like him. I may not agree with him. I may even suggest that men like him be lined up and shot as traitors to their own nation's freedoms from time-to-time. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve his rights until then.

If this is protected by the First Amendment... then my bashing your face in with a wrench for posting my head on a naked dude's body is covered by Self Defense laws, because I won't take character assassination lying down. Unless my head looks amazing on that dude's shoulders.

In which case, by all means.

I think you might have missed the context where Earnest G. Smith proposed this bill first, & the blogger made the photoshopped picture as an act of peaceful protest & to show how ridiculous his bill was.

I don't see how this is a violation of his rights in any way. He is in no way physically or financially harmed, no one would for a second believe that that picture was actually of him (it's not a very good photoshop, but the point being it wouldn't fool anyone), so he isn't being arrested, hasn't lost his job, & his public image isn't damaged. Where exactly is the crime? He hurt the guy's feelings? He's a politician; you know, the same people that claim we're responsible for mass shootings & child murders. So someone pasted his face onto a picture of a guy with his dick hanging out specifically because he's trying to lock up people who might do that to him? I have absolutely zero sympathy for Earnest G. Smith & I commend the efforts of the blogger

 

[mad825]

"They are vulgar. This is vulgar. We're becoming a nation of vulgar people."

vulgar: adj

relating to, or current among the great mass of common people, in contrast to the educated, cultured, or privileged

so... nice?

What dictionary did you get this from?

Vulgar basically means explicit language or behaviour.

 

[Coffeejack]

Well then, I think we all know what must be done.

Do more lewd photoshops of that man.

TO THE LAB!

 

[Innegativeion]

No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It's not a First Amendment right.

I... I ... di... did... is... is anyone else seeing what I'm seeing guys? ANYone else seeing this shit deeeuuuuude?! I...i...i... fsuhfushgujsjgbhjgdz


How... how is this man in the lawmaking process?

 

[Baresark]

The funny thing about rights in America is that they only extend so far as not to infringe upon the rights of others. Everyone always forgets that part. You have the right to say whatever you want... to mock and criticize and decry... but there's an indefinite point at which we all know it crosses a line. The letter of the law doesn't specify, because it's not something one can define mathematically... not yet anyways... but there's a point at which your mocking and criticism become harassment and defamation.

And this is a pretty obvious, blatant infringement of the fellow's rights. In his shoes, I'd be rightly pissed as well. There was no other intent beyond being inflammatory and crude... and congrats on that. Mission accomplished. But you've just plastered a picture of a man's head on a porn star's body all over the internet, to be mocked and ridiculed by millions. I'm pretty sure that violates the spirit of the law entitling that man to a life free of persecution and oppression, in which he can pursue happiness to his heart's content somewhere.

My only problem with this assessment is the act of not being something he approves of is not a violation of his right. People have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. This upsets and angers him, but this treatment isn't robbing him of any of his basic rights. If he was forced to look upon these pictures and forced to listen to feedback based on them, if the people were forced to look upon the picture and forced into thinking this is him in some capacity or this was made to somehow hurt him physically, financially, or in some manner besides emotional, then you might have a point. But the existence of this doesn't infringe upon his or anyone else's rights in any way.

 

[Quellist]

Well then, I think we all know what must be done.

Do more lewd photoshops of that man.

TO THE LAB!

Yes, this exactly. And if the guy wasnt such an utter fool then he would realise that his reaction is going to pave the way for his face being photoshopped onto just about anything and everything thats amusing and offensive.

 

[sid]

Aw, what did you do to the original article picture? I started laughing in the middle of work and had to change the page, but it was absolutely priceless.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

Wasn't this already settled in the Hustler lawsuit a long time ago?

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

Here's the problem with this. If the law passes, people from other countries who were probably not interested or even aware of it to begin with will do it even more frequently than before with fewer consequences.

 

[Evil Smurf]

this guy would hate 4chan

 

[jpoon]

I can't wait to see what Anonymous does to this dipshit. Hopefully his idiotic bill will go down in horrendous flames.