[kthejoker2]

Hiding behind legalism when people are talking about ethics and normative values is cowardly.

Speech that directly causes harm to others is not just about legality.

[kcplate]

Harm from speech is completely subjective and that is why you need a generalized legal way to measure it as harm.

Normative behavior and ethics are subjective as well. They are also subjected to the whims of the mob of the moment.

[kthejoker2]

More useless philosophizing, answer the post directly.

If a specific someone (like the author) says I do not want a deepfake porn of me, and someone else says I don't care, I made one ..

Was harm done? If no, why not?

[kcplate]

Ok, easy enough.

No…if there is no objective legal definition of harm to confirm the subjective understanding of harm in your example.

Yes…if there is an objective legal definition of harm to confirm the subjective understanding of harm in your example.

[kthejoker2]

So you've just outsourced your personal moral code to the law? How ... enlightened you are.

Letting yourself be an empty vessel for the state to fill as they seem fit sounds sacrificial.

[kcplate]

Not at all, but I am realistic enough to know that we cannot have over 8 billion separate definitions of the word “harm” that are actionable. There needs to be a standard that is agreed upon and the law is the source of that.