California’s Crackdown On AI-Generated Political Parody Is Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Says
Lawyers: “Mr. Reagan’s satire videos, which have garnered millions of views, are precisely the kind of speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect.”
A creator of viral political parody videos is suing California officials over new laws restricting AI-generated content like his from being posted and shared online.
The legislation took on political urgency over the summer after Governor Gavin Newsom called one of the videos “illegal.”
In July, the YouTuber known as “Mr. Reagan” released a parody Kamala Harris campaign ad, featuring AI-generated cuts that sound just like her. But you know you’re watching a spoof when “Harris” says things like, “I may not know the first thing about running the country, but remember, that’s a good thing if you’re a deep state puppet.” Or that she’s been selected because she’s “the ultimate diversity hire and a person of color, so if you criticize anything [she] say[s], you’re both sexist and racist.”
The video caught the attention of someone who knows creative genius when he sees it, Elon Musk.
He called it “amazing”:
This is amazing 😂
pic.twitter.com/KpnBKGUUwn— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 26, 2024
Once Musk retweeted it, the brilliant satire also caught the attention of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
And, according to the lawsuit, even though “Mr. Reagan’s” YouTube video acknowledges its content is “digitally generated” and even though it is labeled “parody,” Newsom was not amused.
The video was too “real”: “Manipulating a voice in an ‘ad’ like this one should be illegal,” Newsom warned in a tweet two days later. “I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is”:
Manipulating a voice in an “ad” like this one should be illegal.
I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is. pic.twitter.com/NuqOETkwTI
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) July 29, 2024
Earlier this week, Newsom made good on his threat, signing into law a set of bills “to safeguard the integrity of our elections.”
California is standing up to harmful deepfakes in political ads and other online content.
To help safeguard the integrity of our elections, these three new laws will remove deceptive content from large online platforms, increase accountability, and better inform voters. pic.twitter.com/6wUzHpOSGV
— California Governor (@CAgovernor) September 17, 2024
“These measures will help to combat the harmful use of deepfakes in political ads and other content,” Newsom announced.
But they will also make dissemination of “Mr. Reagan’s” parody videos actionable, his lawyers say, and require social media companies to censor them.
Those videos—the express target of the new laws—are political speech protected by the First Amendment, they argue. In his lawsuit filed by the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI), Christopher Kohls (aka “Mr. Reagan”) challenges two of the statutes, AB 2655 and AB 2839. His lawyers ask the court to declare the laws unconstitutional and block their enforcement.
The “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” (AB2655) requires large social media companies to censor and label AI-generated parody videos of candidates and election videos during specified periods before and after an election.
Although the Act exempts satire and parody, the lawsuit says social media platforms will be incentivized to block content to avoid liability. Also, the Act doesn’t define “satire” or “parody.” That leaves the content creator at the mercy of the social media company or the State. They’ll have unfettered discretion to decide whether his AI-generated content is allowed under the Act, Kohls’ lawyers say.
While AB 2655 directs social media companies to enforce censorship, the second law, “Elections: Deceptive Media in Advertisements,” (AB 2839), “offloads” enforcement to the viewers, allowing them to sue to remove the content. AB 2839 applies not only to advertising, but to all ‘election communication,’ including user-created parodies like “Mr. Reagan’s,” his lawyers explain.
And though the second statute also includes a “safe harbor” for creators who label their content, the labelling requirements are so burdensome that the law amounts to a ban on his videos.
To illustrate, the lawsuit shows what “Mr. Reagan’s” parody ad would look like if he were forced to comply:
So much for the “safe harbor.” According to the lawsuit, once the video is labeled as required, there’s nothing left to see.
Kohls’s lawyers argue that his parody videos are precisely the kind of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect. In a statement, HLLI attorney Adam Schulman said the new laws are “are California’s latest misguided attempt to protect established political interests from criticism by everyday citizens sharing memes online.”
As the lawsuit also points out, sharing memes and videos is the modern way to mock presidential candidates. This is a great American tradition dating back to colonial-era cartoons. Election season used to be fun.
And that might be one unintended consequence of Newsom’s new laws: They’re inspiring even funnier genuine fakes aimed back at the opposition, like this one from The Babylon Bee:
BREAKING: The Babylon Bee has obtained this exclusive, official, 100% real Gavin Newsom election ad. https://t.co/nicrnKF5Ji pic.twitter.com/iksPVxltzI
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) September 18, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The process is the punishment. Defendants who lack deep pockets or political connections will get put through the wringer. Communist-approved parody will be allowed.
And there is no guarantee the courts will overturn this.
When SCOTUS finally strikes this down as anti-constitutional tyranny, which politico will go to prison for this aggressive and egregious assault on the plain, enumerated rights of millions of citizens. Who? And when?
No one. And that’s the problem. Winning a popularity contest to govern should not allow whatever vomit these politicos seek to impose with impunity on the populace.
Abolish qualified immunity. Put these politicos in prison for this aggressive and egregious assault on the plain, enumerated rights of millions of citizens.
Otherwise, it’s just *clown world* where wack-a-mole in the court room is perpetually played.
Indeed. The only real question here is whether or not Newsom signed this bill because he fully believes his own horseshit, or understanding that it will be struck down, but would boost his Democrat street cred.
Isn’t this the same guy who said all citizens have a right to free condoms under the equal protection clause?
Yeah but he never promised they’d be new
Rinse with cold water and they’re good for two months or a weekend at P. Diddy’s.
Totalitarian, lawless and stupid — the vile Dhimmi-crats, in a nutshell.
Elon musk thanks newsom for the free publicy. Newsom is driving new traffic to x-twitter. Musk won’t remove the content. Musk will prevail in court.
Newsom is fool.
legal or not
putting fear into the populace is a win for communistneonazi loving lefty
This is a gift to musk. It will cause boost in traffic to x-twitter. Musk can easily out-lawyer the state of CA on this, and musk will profit from it. It will cause boost in kamala parody videos with countless others rushing into the space to get their 10 minutes of fame, and join musk’s lawsuit for free speech. The US isn’t germany, and americans can’t get put in jail for calling a politician fat.
the government can alwayssss “out lawyer anyone ..b/c they can also get injunctions and make up things ( ask trump ) and tie you up in both court and business dealings
UNFORTUNATELY ,,, your last sentence is not true
they now call it disturbing the peace and/or obstruction etc
you might get let go but you will pay the price..loss of freedom etc
Beside, if Musk didn’t run these hard-hitting campaign ads, who would?
The RNC?
H’yeah, right.
Our Sacred Democracy is in big trouble if lowly peasants are allowed to mock and ridicule gifted, courgeous leaders such as Gavin Noisome.
Newsom is idiot. Former CA gov jerry brown had no respect for him, and didn’t let newsom attend meetings when newsom was Lt. Gov. CA continues its descent into idiocracy.
So who elected gruesome Newsom and the California legislature? The voters of California! We should be mocking them as well as the CA pols. When I first arrived in CA long time ago, I was surprised at the general level of ignorance about everything. When I was touring open houses, I noticed how few books people had in their homes as compared to New York City where I grew up. Newsom is what you get when the voters lack knowledge of how government works, the Constitution, and the history of the US. Today NYC might be just as bad or even worse. I don’t even visit there anymore. I strongly suspect worse because some NY judges don’t seem to recognize the Constitution. To wit: acting Justice Abena Darkeh of the New York Supreme Court, allegedly told a hobbyist gunsmith’s legal team during his trial: “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.” (this needs verification)
“The constitution is whatever I say it is!”
You’re probably curious as to my legal bona fides to offer my opinion on this topic so I’ll tell you.
About 30 years ago, a buddy and I got rip roaring drunk in Cambridge, Massachusetts and while walking past the Harvard Law School I tripped and did a face plant on the front lawn.
And even I could tell you that what Newsom is doing is unconstitutional.
Can we sue Newsom and every member of the California Legislature who voted for these bills for the federal crime of violating our constitutional rights? I am an attorney but I am not the right type to prepare and file a class action suit against those people.
You could, but keep in mind that the two federal laws making it a crime for a government agent to conspire to oppress your constitutional rights has only been allowed by judges to be considered in cases brought by the federal government, despite it having been justifiably invoked by private citizens and corporations hundreds of times.
The last notable time they were used for the win was after Stacey Koons et al. were exonerated by (ironically) a California court for excessive use of force against Rodney King. The Daddy Bush administration decided to make an example of those officers and ordered a second, federal bite at the same apple under this law.
Assuming that there are elections in November; if the totalitarian Left wins, including the Democrat Party faction of the totalitarian Left, this will be repeated by statute and executive order throughout the country. The Left cares nothing for the Constitution, the rule of law, and to be honest any court decree that opposes their power.
Subotai Bahadur
And yet they all swear an oath to uphold it
This all boils down to the fact that Liberals can’t meme.
Hey, California!
You stole our Saturday Night Live and have been wearing it as a skinsuit for three decades.
This is “our SNL” now, so hands off.
Noli me tangere, spurius!
No, you can’t sue or prosecute legislators for voting for unconstitutional legislation.
If it’s Congress that passed the unconstitutional law, then suing or prosecuting the members of Congress who voted for it would explicitly violate the speech or debate clause, as well as the separation of powers.
If it’s a state law, as in this case, then technically there wouldn’t seem to be an explicit constitutional bar on a federal prosecution, or on suing in federal court, but it would still fly in the face of the principle of separation of powers, and I have almost no doubt that the federal courts would dismiss it, probably with sanctions. You simply cannot have courts — even federal ones — telling legislators — even state ones — how they must vote.