In the United States, a controversial decision has been made to ensure the security of the Internet. US President Donald Trump, along with First Lady Melania Trump, signed a law criminalizing the publication of intimate materials about people without their knowledge. The law applies not only to photos and videos, but also to fake images created using artificial intelligence (AI), the so-called deepfakes. The need to protect against cyberbullying in the sexual sphere is recognized by both parties of the Congress. However, a few opponents of the law have concerns about the fate of small Internet resources and freedom of speech in general.
Trump tried to make the introduction of a ban on deepfakes as solemn as possible. The procedure for signing the law, which the media dubbed the Take it down law, or the law on revenge porn, took place in the Rose Garden of the White House. Women and teenagers who were affected by intimate publications, including deepfakes, were invited to it.
Trump made an unusual move and asked to put his wife’s signature on the document. Her autograph will not have legal force, but it is very symbolic. The president’s wife lobbied for the adoption of this bill. Melania made a long speech before signing the law. She also spoke in Congress in March, when lawmakers were discussing the law.
“AI and social media are digital sweets for the next generation, addictive and affecting the cognitive development of our children. But unlike sugar, these new technologies can be used as weapons. They can form beliefs and, unfortunately, affect emotions and even be deadly,” the president’s wife said.
The authors of the bill, Senator Ted Cruz and Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar, were also present at the signing. Their initiative easily passed the Congress. In the House of Representatives, 409 out of 435 congressmen supported the bill. This unanimity is not surprising, given that there are victims of deepfakes among them. Actually, the bill itself appeared after a number of scandals of this kind, in the center of which were politicians and show business stars, such as singer Taylor Swift. Only two opposed it – Republican Congressmen Eric Burlison and Thomas Massey. The latter considers himself to be a libertarian, that is, in this case, to the unconditional opponents of any restrictions on the Internet.
The majority of those who disagree with the law appeal to a different argument, not of an ideological nature. They point out that measures related to the sphere of private life are usually the responsibility of local rather than federal authorities in the United States. Bans similar to those introduced by the Take it down law have already been adopted in many states. Therefore, the adoption of a federal law is excessive, if not harmful. In addition, the law obliges the platform hosting the deepfake to remove it within 48 hours of the victim contacting this objectionable content. It won’t be difficult for large companies. And for small Internet resources that do not have the money to conduct high-quality moderation, this can be a problem. They will either have to delete any materials without bothering to check whether the complaint is justified, or go broke: the law provides for a fine of up to 500 thousand dollars for the infringing company. There is a threat that pseudo-victims will send complaints about completely legal materials, and their complaints will be satisfied for reinsurance. This will be a blow to freedom of speech.
Opponents and supporters of the law are likely to come together in American courts more than once. In Congress, the arguments of those who disagree with Take it down were found to be untenable. Cruz and Salazar pointed out that such bans had been introduced in only 20 of the 50 states by the beginning of this year, and it was generally more difficult to deal with such problems related to the global Internet at the local level than at the federal level. In addition, it’s not just about removing objectionable content, but also about combating serious crimes. After all, the law punishes not only the publication of materials, but also the threat of publication addressed to the victim, that is, in other words, blackmail. Violators will face a prison term of up to three years.
Cruz and Salazar rejected the argument that any Internet resource does not have the ability to establish moderation. They recalled that companies will have a year from the moment the law comes into force to bring their content in line with the requirements prescribed in the document.