The horrifying episode in which Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot generated and posted millions of sexualized images of real people, including women and children, has a clear lesson: It should be illegal to use anyone’s photograph to create a fake image intended to depict that person.

Last summer, Congress passed the Take It Down Act, which prohibits posting deep fakes that depict people engaged in intimate sexual acts. Now Congress should expand the act to cover any misappropriation of a person’s likeness.

This can be accomplished in a manner consistent with the First Amendment. There is a long-standing common-law right of individuals to control the commercial use of their image and to prevent others from using it for gain. That right should provide a basis for outlawing the kind of image appropriation that occurred on Grok.

It will be necessary to have exceptions for political commentary or satire. But fake images should not count as newsworthy for First Amendment purposes. Moreover, the benefits of protecting people from the misappropriation of their images outweighs the risks of chilling the lawful publication of news images.

What makes the Grok situation so immediately upsetting is that it permitted anyone to produce salacious images of anyone at any time. Widely available AI technology makes it easy to do so. It is also clear that market pressures alone will not suffice to stop the practice. Even if Grok has made changes that make it more difficult to produce such images, publicly available, open-source AI can, in principle, be used to achieve the same result.

This state of affairs can’t be right, and the law must find a way to protect against it. The violation is connected to privacy in the sense that it certainly feels like an invasion of privacy to be depicted naked in an image that looks like a photograph. There is also a common-law right of privacy that could serve as a basis for justifying a new law.

But the separate common-law right to control your own image and prevent its misappropriation is an even closer fit to the modern wrong. If I am in a bathing suit and someone takes a photograph of me, then perhaps it isn’t a violation of my privacy to post it. But if you take a photograph of me fully clothed and then transpose my face onto a picture of someone who is naked, that is literally a misappropriation of my face. So long as you’re doing that for your benefit, not for mine, you’ve infringed on my right to ownership of my image.

The right against the misappropriation of my image shouldn’t be limited to nude or otherwise sexualized images of me, however. Just as there is a common-law right against somebody taking my image without my consent and using it to promote their own product or otherwise make money, there should also be a legal right against somebody using my image without my consent for their own purposes. AI-generated images of made-up people would not be protected under this legal principle. The protection would, however, extend to an actually identifiable person — the person whose image was taken.

To ensure that free speech is protected under such a law, the statute should exclude constitutionally protected speech. Editing a news photograph in a way that doesn’t misrepresent the original image shouldn’t be illegal, because a ban might chill the editorial process.

The Supreme Court has also protected parodies under the First Amendment, treating them as exempt from intellectual property restrictions such as copyright law. Parody images based on photographs of real people should therefore also be protected, to the extent that they aren’t intended to mislead the viewer but merely to comment on public figures and matters of public concern. The law should allow you to make all the memes you want using images of any politician or other public figure. Similarly, cartoon figures would be fully protected. The law should be restricted to the appropriation of photographic images or to AI-generated images that are indistinguishable from photographs.

I am a strong defender of First Amendment rights. AI-generated words and images deserve the same protection as any other forms of speech or expression. But the First Amendment has never been understood to protect the misappropriation of one’s image by another. Your image is your property. And if you can’t stop that image from being taken without your consent and transformed into something you don’t want, you don’t really own it.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of “To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.”

Related Articles

Campbell, Beg, Worah: The US needs a national fusion strategy before our lead in energy slips away

Matt K. Lewis: Nation’s challenge after Trump will be to seek justice, not retribution

Jamelle Bouie: How Marco Rubio is failing Western Civ

Commentary: We celebrate civil rights heroes only after they stop making us uncomfortable

Barbara McQuade: How to safeguard the DOJ against the next Trump

President Donald Trump’s aura of invincibility is starting to vanish. Three new polls — including the usually Trump-hospitable Rasmussen — suggest that Joe Biden did a better job as president.

Worse still (for Trump), he’s underwater on immigration, foreign policy and the economy — the very trifecta that powered his return. An incumbent taking on water like that is no longer steering the ship of state, he’s bobbing in the deep end, reaching for a Mar-a-Lago pool noodle.

To be fair, Democrats have a proud tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But suppose — purely hypothetically — that this sticks. Suppose Democrats win the midterms. And suppose a Democrat captures the White House in 2028.

Then what?

Trumpism isn’t a political movement so much as a recurring event. You don’t defeat it; you board up the windows and wait.

Even if Trump does not attempt a third term (a gambit the Constitution frowns upon), he will remain the dominant gravitational force in Republican politics for as long as he is sentient and within Wi-Fi range.

Which means any Democratic administration that follows would be well-advised to consider it is governing on borrowed time. In American politics, you are always one scandal, one recession or one deepfake video away from packing your belongings into a cardboard box.

Trump’s MAGA successor (whoever he or she might be) will inherit millions of ardent believers, now seasoned by experience, backed by tech billionaires and steeped in an authoritarian worldview.

So how exactly does the country “move on” when a sizable slice of its elite class appears to regard liberal democracy as more of an anachronism than a governing philosophy?

This is not an entirely new dilemma. After the Civil War, Americans had to decide whether to reconcile with the rebels or punish them or some mix of the two — and the path chosen by federal leaders shaped the next century through Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the long struggle for civil rights.

At Nuremberg, the Allies opted for trials instead of firing squads. Later, South Africa’s post-apartheid government attempted to achieve reconciliation via truth.

Each moment wrestled with the same problem: How do you impose consequences without becoming the very thing you were fighting in the first place — possibly sparking a never-ending cycle of revenge?

Which brings us to even more specific questions, such as where does Trumpism fit into this historical context — and should there be any accountability after MAGA?

Start with Trump himself. Even if he is legally immune regarding official acts, what about allegations of corruption? Trump and his family have amassed billions since returning to office.

It is difficult to picture a future Democratic administration hauling him into court, especially if Trump grants himself broad pardons and preemptive clemency on his way out of office.

So if accountability comes, it would probably target figures in his orbit — lieutenants, enablers, assorted capos not covered by pardons. But is even this level of accountability wise?

On one hand, it is about incentives and deterrence. If bad actors get to keep the money and their freedom, despite committing crimes, they (and imitators) will absolutely return for an encore.

On the other hand, a Democratic president might reasonably decide that voters would prefer lower grocery bills to more drama.

Trump himself offers a cautionary tale. He devoted enormous energy to retribution, grievance and settling scores. It is at least conceivable that he might have been in stronger political shape had he devoted comparable attention to, say, affordability.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that the past Trump indictments strengthened him politically. Nothing energizes a base like the words “They’re coming for me,” especially when followed by the words “and you’ll be next,” next to a fundraising link. Do Democrats want to create new martyrs and make rank-and-file Americans feel like “deplorables” who are being persecuted for their political beliefs?

So perhaps the answer is surgical. Focus on ringleaders. Spare the small fry. Proceed in sober legal tones. Make it about the law, not the spectacle.

Even this compromise would invite a backlash. Democrats, it seems, are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

The good news is that smart people are actively debating this topic — far better than trying to improvise a solution on Inauguration Day — just as similar questions were asked after Trump lost in 2020. A few weeks ago, for example, David Brooks and David Frum discussed this topic on Frum’s podcast.

Unfortunately, there is no tidy answer. Too much punishment risks looking like vengeance. Too little risks sparking another sequel.

It may sound melodramatic to say this might be the most important question of our time. But while this republic has endured a lot, it might not survive the extremes of amnesia or revenge.

Choosing the narrow path in between will require something rarer than a landslide victory: justice with restraint.

But do we have what it takes?

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.” He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

Jamelle Bouie: How Marco Rubio is failing Western Civ

Commentary: We celebrate civil rights heroes only after they stop making us uncomfortable

Barbara McQuade: How to safeguard the DOJ against the next Trump

Thomas Friedman: Netanyahu plays Trump and American Jews for fools — again

Maureen Dowd: Welcome to the voyage of the damned

A production at Children’s Theatre Company seems like the definition of a sensory overload. The theater produces big, loud and colorful shows full of over-the-top characters like the Grinch and the denizens of Oz. Its mission statement promises “extraordinary theater experiences that educate, challenge and inspire young people and their communities.”

And yet, for a decade now, CTC leadership has worked with Twin Cities mental health nonprofit Fraser to create special, sensory-friendly performances for kids on the autism spectrum and other neurodivergent people. For each production, the theater typically offers a pair of performances, a Friday evening show and Sunday matinee, designated as sensory-friendly. Two took place this week for “Go, Dog. Go!” and the company will stage them again for “Dinosaur World Live” and “The Wizard of Oz” later this spring.

“It’s definitely a delicate balance,” said Gina Brady, Fraser’s sensory supports and training program manager. “We don’t want it to feel like a watered-down performance or completely change the story or things like that. We still want people to have the authentic experience that they’re trying to get.”

Making theater comfortable

So how to they do it?

It’s about establishing a more relaxed attitude in the audience, Brady said. That means allowing audience members to move around and make more noise than is typically acceptable in a theater setting.

House lights usually stay up, some volumes are reduced and strobe lights and the like are skipped. A quiet room is available for the overstimulated in need of cooling down. CTC even offers theatergoers the opportunity to “meet your seat” prior to the production in order to reduce stress for those in unfamiliar territory.

The idea isn’t to change the audience members, but to make the experience more comfortable and relatable.

“It kind of puts the responsibility on the business to make the modifications, to make it as inclusive and accessible to many members of the community, rather than expecting that each member of the community fit themselves perfectly into this mold that society has told them that they have to fit into,” Brady said.

Sensory-friendly events are increasingly common

The concept of sensory-friendly performances began to take shape in Twin Cities arts organizations in the mid ’10s, said Brady, whose first experience with one was “The Lion King” at the Orpheum Theatre in 2016.

Today, such performances and other resources like sound-dampening headphones and sensory-friendly hours are common in organizations across the metro, including Minnesota Children’s Museum, Science Museum of Minnesota, Ordway Center for the Performing Arts, Guthrie Theater, Walker Art Center and Minnesota Orchestra.

While people on the autism spectrum make up a large part of these audiences, Brady uses the umbrella term neurodivergent to describe those who attend.

“We talk about it as people experiencing sensory differences, because it includes the autism spectrum and most of the neurodiversity umbrella. But it also includes people who have had past traumatic experiences, maybe people who have migraines or neurologic surgical conditions. Sometimes it’s just people who benefit from a more relaxed theater atmosphere, or people who don’t feel like they can comfortably go to a standard theater performance.”

Gina Brady and a theatergoer at the Hennepin Arts sensory-friendly performance of “The Lion King” at the Orpheum Theater in 2024. (Courtesy of Fraser)

When preparing a sensory-friendly performance, Brady meets with staff at a theater to tour the space and get an idea of the challenges they face. For CTC’s “Go, Dog. Go!,” she went to a standard performance to get a feel for the show and then made recommendations for modifications.

“For example, there’s a character who is blowing their whistle through the performance,” Brady said. “So I recommended that either that’s completely eliminated or maybe changed to something like a kazoo that’s not quite that same high frequency. They had some strobe lighting, so (they) modified that. The Children’s Theatre is wonderful, they’ve been doing this for 10 seasons and they are very open to feedback.”

Parents love it

The sensory-friendly performances are a hit with parents, said Michael Winn, CTC’s associate artistic director and director of equity and community partnerships.

“Oh, they love it. They love it,” Winn said. “Parents are very concerned about their children, but they’re also concerned about the actions of their children and how they come across to the general population. Their child can be their full self in this particular environment and not worry about how anybody else in the audience is reacting. It gives their child a place to be themselves.”

Katie Najjar knows that power firsthand. She has three children, and her youngest is a seven-year-old who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in 2021.

“There are a couple of challenges,” Najjar said. “He’s still pretty young. Sometimes we don’t know if he’ll like something, and he may react to not liking it in a way that’s not typical. He might yell or scream or want to run around. He also might enjoy it, but the way he moves his body or vocalizes might not be what most people would expect during a theater performance.”

After her son was diagnosed, Najjar didn’t know much about the available resources and began to learn about all things autism. She started volunteering as a classroom parent at Fraser School, where her son attends. Her background is in events and so she also began helping out with fundraising. When a marketing and development position at the nonprofit opened up in 2024, she took the leap and took the full-time job. All the while, her son was a Fraser client.

A sensory guide for a Children’s Theatre Company sensory-friendly performance. (Courtesy of Fraser)

Najjar began taking her son to various Fraser events. Now a first grader, her son recently went on a field trip to Stages Theatre Company in Hopkins.

“They have a wonderful sensory program,” she said. “And we discovered he loves live theater; he got a great kick out of it. And it was something we had never done before. He loved it so much, we’re planning on doing some more events at the Children’s Theatre Company.

“As a parent, you know that you’re among a group of people who are in the same boat and are accepting when everybody’s making different movements or vocalizing differently. It’s just a more relaxed and supportive environment, which is great.”

A possible entry point

Experiencing the arts in general is beneficial for everyone, Brady said. And sensory-friendly performances allow people to get those benefits as a whole family. One of the biggest recurring pieces of feedback she hears from parents is that it serves as a great entry point.

“People tell us they got more familiar with the building, with the environment, with the flow of how things work. It gave them the confidence to come back during a standard performance. That’s not going to be the case for everyone. Some people are really going to need the additional support and relaxed environment. But for those who had some anxiety around going the first time, they now they have more opportunities to go back to the standard performance.”

Related Articles

So close you can see elephant eyelashes? Welcome to San Diego’s Elephant Valley

Concert review: Brandi Carlile proclaims her love for Minnesotans at joyous Target Center show

Review: With new director, Chanhassen Dinner Theatres’ ‘Guys and Dolls’ shines

A kaleidoscope of oddball tomatoes to try as seed-starting season nears

Made in St. Paul: Community-made solidarity posters, at Morgan Hiscocks’ Lunalux letterpress studio