[anonymouskimmer]

I did step outside of my own point of view to consider others' points of view, and post a reply to you highlighting those others' points of view. Like you, deepfake porn is not an issue that impacts me, therefore I'm privileging those it does impact when discussing whether or not it should be clamped down on.

Do you not realize that the actions in your second paragraph turn into already illegal harassment if done sufficiently?

Mass distributing, or targeted distribution, are their own things. It's not people's "thoughts", or even their stories or art when not involving others, or when kept sandboxxed in appropriate limited forums, or depending on the "speech" when properly labeled as fictitious (though some speech is wrong regardless of its labeling).

[Dweller1622]

> or depending on the "speech" when properly labeled as fictitious (though some speech is wrong regardless of its labeling).

What's an example of this?

[anonymouskimmer]

In general insulting or threatening statements that end with an "I'm just kidding".

"For legal purposes I have to state that everything I'm writing is fictitious. :wink:

Got that? Everything I'm telling you to do here I'm not actually saying you should do. You obviously shouldn't do it because it's illegal. :wink:

Here's how to get guns and other weapons.

Here's where we should gather and at what time.

Here's the rest of the plan for killing all of those X people and tearing down the government.

I'm definitely not saying to do this. :wink: This is just criticism and parody of what actual bad people would do."

That's a pretty extreme example.

Less extreme examples are "based on a true story" accounts that demonize some real people just to make a good villain.

[Dweller1622]

Ah, alright. I suppose it comes down to the fact that even thought labeled as such, this speech isn't actually fictitious. I see your point here.