Moreover, the entire point of Hustler v Falwell was that no reasonable person could have believed the Hustler piece was anything but satire, while the whole point of a "deep fake" is that the opposite is meant to be true.
It's very strange to argue that deepfake revenge porn is in any way comparable to Hustler v Falwell; it seems like you'd have to be almost totally unfamiliar with that case – or with deepfakes, or with revenge porn – to draw a connection.
Maybe in the venn diagram of deep fakes and revenge porn, these are not two perfectly overlapping sets, and since first amendment issues have to pass strict scrutiny, the law could still be in Constitutional jeopardy?
Or arguing in bad faith because you just think people should always be able to "say" whatever they want whenever they want because slippery slope >> thought police >> being an asshole sends you to jail.
It's very strange to argue that deepfake revenge porn is in any way comparable to Hustler v Falwell; it seems like you'd have to be almost totally unfamiliar with that case – or with deepfakes, or with revenge porn – to draw a connection.