AI 'Art', and the Slippery Slope of Censorship

Blurring the First Amendment, and discussing when too far is... "too far"

What an amazing time to be a writer.

For example, our ability to produce our own images using Artificial Intelligence [AI] has been a godsend for wordsmiths across the Internet. With the right program (which I have yet to discover, though I am still looking) and a few skills, writers are no longer left at the mercy of Wikimedia and other free-use image sites. Now, with talent and some keystrokes, we can create our own aesthetical vibes for the stories we produce.

However - as with everything - there is a dark side to this technology.

The Naked (and Clothed) Truth

That side reared it ugly head late last month, with utterly vile, explicit images of several celebrities (including Taylor Swift) being posted on social media. I unfortunately came across a few of those images on X before they were pulled down, and yes… most of them were beyond sickening.

So much so that, while I normally care not about any celebrities, I could not help but empathize with Swift in that moment. I imagined such images being produced of someone with whom I was involved, or a beloved daughter or dear female friend, and I felt a rage well up inside me.

[The fact that such technologies are used in the sexual exploitation of children, according to reports, only enrages further. That is fodder for a different article, however, but so my opinion is clear: Anyone using AI to create, or disseminate, images of children in sexual situations should be given a speedy trial, then shoved mercilessly into a wood chipper.]

So yes, (undoubtedly basement-dwelling) creators utilized AI to produce grotesque images of celebrities, and (though people seem to have forgotten) they have been doing the same to 'regular’ folks for years. Now, however (because it finally happened to those precious celebrities), it is being judged as a violation of virtually everything and must be stopped.

But wait - what if the opposite occurred?

---

Thank you for your continued support, and - if not already a subscriber - join me as we build a unique Substack subculture of information, entertainment, and enlightenment

---

Well it has, and is occurring, right now. A new tool called DignifAI was recently launched, and it actually allows the user to add clothes to people who are scantily (or not at all) clad in photographs. It also gives one the power to remove tattoos from those who have them displayed.

Coming from 4chan, the origin of many things great and terrible, this tool is being used largely to target a variety of OnlyFans ‘models,’ with users responding to saucy photographs with versions of said-photos altered to show them clothed modestly. While it has been used on both men and women, the latter is (once again) taking the brunt, with deliberately sexist messages oft attached.

Which begs the question: Is DignifAI a violation of someone’s… what, privacy? Personal space? Copyrights? This has come from so far out of left-field I don’t even know how to process it, but leave it up to 4chan to go where others fear to tread… for good or bane.

So where do we go from here? It would seem, strictly from the surface, that the answer to resolve all these issues is simple and straightforward; pass legislation to ban AI images which clearly represent another person. That is what many people are demanding, and it is something those in D.C. are seriously considering.

Just one slight problem with that; the First Amendment.

Lady Mistress Liberty Has Some Thoughts

Contrary to the confused ramblings of the unaware, offensive materials are protected under the first amendment in the United States. That includes ‘hate speech’ (whatever that means these days), provocative writings, and visual arts. So being one does not violate the basics (threats of violence, harassment, slander / libel, etc.), you can express yourself however you wish, by whatever medium you prefer.

That’s the theory, anyhow.

As such, we venture along the edge of a slippery slope when we start talking about banning images which the majority deems as ‘offensive.’ The Swift examples are extreme, of course - and certainly designed to BE offensive - but when talking about a general ‘ban,’ how general are we considering… and where exactly do we draw the line?

One example I stumbled across on the night the Swift images erupted was an AI image of House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [AOC] in a spicy lip-lock with actress Gal Gadot at the congressional dais; while both were fully clothed, it was still clearly a salacious image. Should that be outlawed?

---

Join me on the Substack app, for up-to-date Notes, Friday chats, and other shenanigans!

---

It seems like an easy call, sure, since it is very likely the image was only meant to be titillating, but when it comes to the first amendment we cannot make such assumptions. After all, what if the creator’s intent was to comment on AOC’s perceived connections to Hollywood… or, perhaps even Israel; Gadot is a very vocal supporter, after all.

If true… what then? Remember, an ‘artist’ once took a picture of a crucified Jesus submerged in a jar of urine, and was celebrated for the ‘artistry’ of it. Titled, “Piss-Christ,” it offended literally tens of millions of people, yet was considered ‘protected’ by the first amendment.

If that was ‘art’ in the name of ‘social commentary’ but portraying two famous people making out with each other isn’t… where do we draw the line?

There is one thing I know for certain: At least a quarter of the people irate about the Swift images would have no issue sharing an AI creation of an aggressive Donald Trump erotically violating a disrobed Marjorie Taylor Greene. They would see such imagery as political or social commentary - protected by the first amendment - and would embrace it gleefully.

So… would that be ‘protected speech?’ It is okay if the targets are two people that a certain demographic despises? Do we only protect the young women universally admired, especially those pretty-pretty celebrities who are perceived by the Powerful to be ‘better’ than us lowly commoners, out of some sense of elitist-corrupted chivalry?

Sorry - the Bill of Rights doesn’t work that way; indeed, it cares not about our personal feelings, at all.

Balancing Act

And what about those ‘Only Fans” models mentioned above? Is adding clothes to their nude-ish images protected social commentary, or just malicious trolling, or… both?

Is it a copyright violation, since alterations to copyrighted images are oft permitted in the name of ‘commentary.’ Should these women be protected from having their photos altered, or does the fact they voluntarily - publicly - posted said-images open them up for such alterations?

And if we go all-out and ban all of the above examples, how does that affect painters and sculptors and cartoonists, those who may venture into such imagery with oils or chisels or inks? Is AI imagery ‘art’ or ‘commentary’ or ‘satire’ to be protected under first amendment statutes, or is it something other? Because if it IS ‘other’ while something like the “Piss-Christ’ photo is protected?

Again - where do we draw the line… and how do we find the balance between liberty and protection?

Congress is primed to do something - ANYTHING - because ‘Taylor Swift!’ And yes, I agree that something should be done, narrow in scope and measured in approach. With that understood, when they do move we must keep a sharp eye on what they propose, and be ever leery.

We are traversing a dangerous slope when it comes to the first amendment, and even one misstep - one poorly worded sentence - can cause us to slide down into an abyss of free-speech violations which could adversely affect artists of all stripes for generations to come.

Protect people, absolutely (all people, not just the Globalist-adored ‘elites’), but make sure they - and we - are also protecting our Natural Rights. Because we know how those slimy politicians are, and how they abuse open-ended laws - even the Constitution itself - to wash away even the most basic of fundamental liberties.

And ever remember - once said-liberties are gone, they seldom-to-never return. As always, we must remain smart and vigilant, and never surrender even an inch of sacred, Liberty-infused ground…

---

An annual subscription is now only $30 a year, 50% off the monthly rate! If you have the means please consider supporting my work with a paid membership, or subscribe for free!

---

All Above Images: AI Generated

Bonus Track: ART-ifical