There are federal laws against posting fake nudes they CAN be sued for posting the evidence.

Many jurisdictions have started banning nonconsensual intimate imagery, including the US (in several states as well as federally under the TAKE IT DOWN Act).

That seems recently signed into law (ie, untested in courts) & patently unconstitutional.
Would that law prohibit obscene depictions of Trump?

Well, the constitutionality will need to be tested, sure, but the US first amendment is not absolute, even if it is sweeping relative to other countries.

Also, the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world. Plenty of other countries have put similar laws on the books over the last 2-3 years.

but the US first amendment is not absolute

It's pretty clear: strict scrutiny.

Also, the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world.

Would the jurisdiction for a case between a US citizen & US company not be the US?

Most obvious case of projection I’ve ever seen. I’ve sent your account info to the FBI crimes against children division.

Good I'm glad I've always wanted someone to report mt benign existence LOL

Not benign. Pathetic and demonic. You should take steps to end it asap.

Why are you so mad at someone who is anti Pedro??

I don't think anyone has any delusions that Twitter is private, not even DM's.

Worth noting he has to pay these women lifetime contracts to father his children, many of these women were ex employees at his companies.

Cool motive. Still gross.

Actually, not cool motive. The man is a eugenics supporter and is trying to fill the world with his genes.

The difference between impregnating and being the father figure. He's such a piece of shit.

Sorry I guess I found your comment quite jarring as in "glad I don't have legs for foot fungus" sort of jarring. Either way, hope you super powers to get through it!

Maybe. For photographs, it's definitely not unconstitutional to make it illegal, because people have a right to privacy (4th amendment sort of, and 10th because they're state laws).

For Trump, and for non-photographic media, it's a little different. For one, he's a very public figure. Another, you could argue it's artistic, satirical, or critical of him.

Now if you were doing it maliciously, with intent to harass him personally, then yeah that would probably be considered not protected and carry civil or criminal liability.

For one, he’s a very public figure.

As is Swift.

maliciously, with intent to harass him personally

Is that the standard?
Wouldn't an act of harassment (as legally defined) rather than only intent of it be a required element?

The argument seems weak for a fake image of a public figure.

I wonder if grok could make some distasteful Elon deepfakes.

At what point do these artists (read labels) start suing for defamation (read loss of profits).

How is AI not buried under piles of lawsuits?

Definitely not convicted. That'd be some crazy speed.

However, your insistence that it hasn't happened yet so can't happen is insane. There has to be a first case in which it hadn't happened before.