INHIBITING THE POSTING OF ALTERED PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEOS

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

[With vitally important mid-term elections coming up in 2022 which undoubted will be followed by a contentious Presidential election in 2024, now is the time to consider the following statute which if adopted by Congress could very well go a long way to  making public debate on issues a lot more objective, rational and civilized.  And, importantly, it could greatly reduce internet trolling and foreign influence in our elections.]

Misinformation can have very serious and damaging political, social other consequences. It can cause governmental officials to make incorrect decisions and it can cause public opinion to be swayed in the wrong direction and/or cause a considerable amount of political division.   There’s no question that in these politically polarized and fragile times where various folks and factions on the left and right seem to always try to control the news narrative, that taking steps to improve the ability of both policy makers and the public to ascertain the facts that affect them is more important than ever.   Correct decisions cannot be made unless the true facts are first determined (to the extent reasonably practicable).

Take the case of UFOs.  A few months ago the government basically said that there are sightings that cannot be explained which left open the very serious possibility that aliens might be responsible. (We aren’t going to argue the point here)

For decades the government has minimized, denied and/or tried to divert the public’s attention away from serious inquiry into the origins of UFOs—all despite arguably credible and convincing eyewitness testimony, photographs, videos and the existence of other evidence indicating that UFOs have appeared in many nations and in our oceans.  We’ve even had trustworthy witnesses like astronauts, Governors of states, airline and military pilots give credible testimony as to the existence of UFOs.  Moreover, military personal alarmingly tell us  that UFOs have disarmed nuclear missiles and landed next to foreign airbases housing nuclear bombs.

Against this we’ve had folks who amuse themselves by making fictitious things like crop circles and/or creating Youtube videos, purportedly showing UFOs, but in reality what is depicted is a cleverly photoshopped video designed primarily to humiliate believers in UFOs or simply to have some kind of fun at the public’s expense.

And then there are several respectable theoretical physicists who postulate that we might well be living in something akin to a computer game-like simulation conducted by some higher beings, from who knows where, who wish merely to study us in order to suit their own purposes.

On this last point I recently watched a Youtube video someone posted that purported to show evidence  that we are living in such a simulation.  Again we aren’t going to argue the point here, but the video in question undoubted will be taken by some as proof we are living in a simulation.    Suffice it to  say that we lean towards the idea that regardless of  the validity of the simulation hypothesis we believe that at least the video in question which, while very interesting, and very well done, was probably photoshopped.  But do  we know that for sure?  No.

Moreover, I’m sure that videos have been posted that purport to show various religious figures moving, smiling, weeping etc.  The subject of religion and who or what created us is perhaps the most profound issue that there is.

And to add to the above, there are no doubt tons of political ads and other political content that are created during the election cycle that are cut, cropped and edited in such a way so as to make the ads….shall we say interesting, if not persuasive, even though they are false and misleading.

And to dangerously compound matters, sometimes the nefarious photoshopping and video editing is done by foreign actors (who would likely be adversaries in the event of armed conflict) who are trying to sow discord and discontent in America—not to mention change our election results.

The point is that that all of these subjects are of paramount and even existential importance.   We are talking about nothing short of answering fundamental questions such as whether the Almighty exists, whether aliens can neutralize our most powerful weapons and whether our leaders are making the right decisions.  And all of this is not to mention the issue of the effects all of this has on the question of whether we are electing the right leaders in the first place.

For this reason, our governmental leaders, legislators and the general public need to take more seriously photographs and videos that have been photoshopped or otherwise materially altered so as to mislead the viewer.

In short, tainted and doctored photographs and videos can cause civil discord, social upheaval and perhaps even the bloodshed of international and/or civil war.

As such should our leaders not seriously consider making it a crime to knowingly manipulate, alter or change photographs and videos in a materially misleading way?   First Amendment concerns obviously creep into this discussion, but the thinking here is that fraud is not protected by the First Amendment provided, of course, that the criminal statute in question is properly crafted.

Consider the following possible statutory language (which would, of course, need some refinement and/or elaboration):

It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to post or publish, or to cause to post or publish any picture or video unless said posting or publication is accompanied by a statement containing the following:

The identity of the Content Provider or a statement that the Content Provider is unknown.

A statement that the Content Provider has certified in writing to the Publisher one of the following:

• That the photograph, video or depiction has not been materially altered;
• That the photograph video or depiction has been materially altered; or
• That it is unknown whether the photograph, video or depiction has been materially altered; or
• The photograph, video or depiction is being shared and/or published for entertainment purposes only and is not intended to be a factual representation of the characters and events depicted.

The statute would then define “materially altered” as something akin to any change alteration or modification to the photograph or video so as to significantly change the appearance of the persons, objects, time, circumstances and/or events depicted in such a way so as to intentionally or recklessly mislead the audience and/or foreseeable future viewers of the true nature of and/or the actual facts and circumstances surrounding the Content.

“Content” is the photograph or video in question.  (Similar rules could be developed for audio recordings as well).   However only certain “Content” would be covered by and/or subject to the rules and criminal sanctions (see below) created hereby.

The Content Provider is both the natural person as well as their employer responsible to taking the photograph and/or video.

The Publisher is the newspapers, website, blog, vlog, youtube and/or social media platform making the Content available to more than a threshold number of foreseeable users (for example, more than 10,000).  The term foreseeable includes likely recipients viewers through retweets and on social media newsfeeds etc.

The Publisher would be responsible, under some pain of some penalty, for collecting and keeping records of the certifications made by the Content Provider for purposes of complying with this law.

For videos that depict several events or scenes the representations should either make a blanket representation that the the Content is altered if any of it is altered; or very briefly specify which particular scenes are altered and which are not.

The failure by the Content Provider(s) and/or the Publisher to abide by this Section shall be a misdemeanor punishable by fine not to exceed $100,000  and/or imprisonment for up to a year.   In setting any punishment the court shall consider the size of the foreseeable audience, the degree of harm caused and culpability the Content Provider and Publisher.   A second offense if occurring within one year shall be increase the fine to up to $1 million  and with increasing fines and a fifth offense in that period shall be a felony.

First time offenders who were not regularly engaging in the business of publishing Content would be given just a warning for a first offense unless the Content in question related to: political campaigns, the biographical history or policy positions of candidates or pending legislative proposals and/or facts, circumstances and/or events of significant public interest because they affect the health, safety and welfare of the community, the state or the nation.  Moreover, Publishers and Content Providers would not get the benefit of these lenient first time offender rules ( where they get a mere warning for a first offense ) if the offending content pertains to UFO or other matters that are substantially likely to have national defense, environmental, scientific, economic, health or safety implications.

Naturally, more work is likely to be necessary on any legislation in this area.  But our opinion is that something like the foregoing is a good place to start and deserves serious food for thought.

Your comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome.

David Dixon Lentz                                October 27, 2021

©  Copyright 2021;   David D. Lentz;    All Rights Reserved.

This article is based on a similar article I did for reasonandbalance.com.    DDL