Trump signs bill cracking down on explicit deepfakes - The bipartisan Take It Down Act, which passed both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly, is one of the few pieces of legislation Trump has signed into law in his second term.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed legislation Monday that bans the nonconsensual online publication of sexually explicit images and videos that are both authentic and computer-generated.

The Take It Down Act makes publishing such content illegal, subjecting violators to mandatory restitution and criminal penalties such as prison, fines or both. The bill also establishes criminal penalties for people who make threats to publish the intimate visual depictions, some of which are created using artificial intelligence.


The measure requires websites, through enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission, to remove such imagery after they receive requests from victims within 48 hours and to make efforts to take down copies, as well.


"With the rise of AI image generation, countless women have been harassed with deepfakes and other explicit images distributed against their will. This is ... wrong, and it’s just so horribly wrong," Trump said at an afternoon signing ceremony in the White House Rose Garden. "It’s a very abusive situation like, in some cases, people have never seen before. And today we’re making it totally illegal."

First lady Melania Trump, who championed the legislation, attended the event.

"This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused through nonconsensual, intimate imagery," she said at the ceremony. "Artificial Intelligence and social media are the digital candy for the next generation — sweet, addictive and engineered to have an impact on the cognitive development of our children, but unlike sugar, these new technologies can be weaponized, shape beliefs and, sadly, affect emotions and even be deadly."

It is only the sixth bill Trump has signed into law in his second term. By his 100th day in office, he had signed only five bills — fewer than any other president in the first 100 days of an administration since at least Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s, according to an NBC News analysis of data in the Congressional Record.

The Senate approved the measure by unanimous consent and the House overwhelmingly passed it in a 409-2 vote last month. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., sponsored the bill in the Senate, while Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla., introduced its companion in the House along with several other members, including Democrats.


According to the bill's sponsors, while many states have laws explicitly banning sexual deepfakes, they vary in terms of classification of crime and penalties.

Trump highlighted the bill in early March, joking that it would apply to him. “I’m going to use that bill for myself, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online," he said.

The first lady also held an event on Capitol Hill that month touting the proposal. "It’s heartbreaking to witness young teens, especially girls, grappling with the overwhelming challenges posed by malicious online content like deepfakes," she said.

"This toxic environment can be severely damaging," Melania Trump continued. "We must prioritize their well-being by equipping them with support and tools necessary to navigate this hostile digital landscape. Every young person deserves a safe online space to express themselves free without the looming threat of exploitation or harm."


 
Does this mean I never have to see another foot fetish AI photo of AOC again?
You’ll take my collection of famous people kneeling with their tongues out from my cold dead hands!
IMG_1365.webpIMG_3335.webp
 
I mean...yeah...this is a good thing, but total gooner death isn't as important to me as total niggo and spic deportation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Necrosan
I read through this bill and it's a doozy for the farms.
- it's not just deep fakes it's any intimate imagery.
- the platform must take down the content in question without question. there is no process to avoid this.. no proof of ownership. nothing. the kicker is that the service has 48 hours to respond or remove the content, or else they lose their protections.

it doesn't apply to:
original, non AI posted publicly
original, non AI posted commercially (only fans)
anything posted with consent.

this means that those videos of Chris Chan are likely illegal to post now, as he sent them directly to who he thought was his online gf. go figure
 
This will make for an interesting Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1988 that parodies of public figures was protected speech, even if the depictions caused emotional distress. This was the Flynt vs Falwell case where Flynt made a full page ad in Hustler depicting Falwell as a drunk who fucked his mother. On the ad Flynt put "parody and not to be taken seriously." I'm not sure if deepfakes would fall under this or not, but it was brought up a few times when AI pictures of Taylor Swift were going around of her fucking Big Bird, Oscar the Grouch, and most of the Kansas City Chiefs. Now for non public figures this wouldn't really apply, like I said going to be an interesting case.
 
Last edited:
I read through this bill and it's a doozy for the farms.
- it's not just deep fakes it's any intimate imagery.
- the platform must take down the content in question without question. there is no process to avoid this.. no proof of ownership. nothing. the kicker is that the service has 48 hours to respond or remove the content, or else they lose their protections.

it doesn't apply to:
original, non AI posted publicly
original, non AI posted commercially (only fans)
anything posted with consent.

this means that those videos of Chris Chan are likely illegal to post now, as he sent them directly to who he thought was his online gf. go figure
This sounds like it's just waiting to be abused. I do generally agree that people who are revenge pornography victims should have the means to seek justice since a former partner weaponising someone's most intimate moments against them is one of the most extreme forms of emotional abuse I can think of, but never at the expense of the general public's right to comment on and criticise the conduct of those who've been involved in these situations.

If a public figure is lying about a sexual encounter despite a leaked tape of it circulating, how are you supposed to report on that without incriminating yourself? If a sex pest is repeatedly sending you unsolicited nude photos, how do you prove your allegation against them is true?

I really, really fucking hate legislation that erodes free speech under the guise of a virtuous mission. This one feels more sloppy than intentional, but the end result is the same.
 
Looking forward to the EFF and ACLU doing absolutely nothing about this.
There will definitely be people who try to expand this definition, but I wonder how far 'intimate images' will stretch. I buy Rekeita and Ralph trying to flex this tool on ever picture of them and claiming that they're so sexy that any picture of them is inherently 'intimate'. But do you think we will see an Israeli lobby group fund a case to keep massacre pictures taken off the internet after an initial filing? Could selective nudity become modern internet camoflague to supress photo-journalists?
 
I read through this bill and it's a doozy for the farms.
- it's not just deep fakes it's any intimate imagery.
- the platform must take down the content in question without question. there is no process to avoid this.. no proof of ownership. nothing. the kicker is that the service has 48 hours to respond or remove the content, or else they lose their protections.

it doesn't apply to:
original, non AI posted publicly
original, non AI posted commercially (only fans)
anything posted with consent.

this means that those videos of Chris Chan are likely illegal to post now, as he sent them directly to who he thought was his online gf. go figure
So basically when ever a politico or famous figure gets caught either cheating/doing weird sex stuff they are gonna claims its a AI Fake and get it taken down.
 
I fear for actual free speech, it’s an incredibly slippery slope with bills like this.
No, the content they’re targeting is not good either, but to contradict previous court precedent as well as the first amendment is only opening the US up for future hate speech laws.

Women are going to abuse this to no end.
Not just women, but weak-minded individuals. People that have targeted the kiwifarms in the past will absolutely try to use this and further chip away at free speech.
 
This will have no effect on the ability to easily create endless images like this, and that means it will be a toothless law that can't be enforced at scale.

Dumb fucking politicians always overstep their boundaries trying to play to their dumbest constituents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SadLonelyLoser
Back