Oh man. Senior U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, humiliated California Gov. Gavin Newsom in his order that paused the governor’s law blocking “deepfakes.”
Chris Kohls, the maker of the VP Kamala Harris video at the center of the issue, sued Newsom.
This line from Mendez, you guys:
“Supreme Court precedent illuminates that while a wellfounded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape may be justified, this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment,” wrote Mendez.
Newsom’s law banned digitally altered political “images and audio impersonating candidates.”
Newsom threw a fit when Elon Musk “shared” the AI-altered video of Harris in July.
Newsom’s companion law forced social media platforms to remove these “deepfakes” when users flagged them.
Another law required disclaimers on the AI ads.
“When political speech and electoral politics are at issue, the First Amendment has almost unequivocally dictated that Courts allow speech to flourish rather than uphold the State’s attempt to suffocate it,” continued Mendez.
OUCH. BURN. I love it.
If you know me, then you know I despise censorship. I hate all censorship. All of it.
Mendez also slammed the disclaimer requirement, calling it burdensome. He cited the 1988 SCOTUS case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.
The obstructiveness of this requirement is concerning because parody and satire have relayed creative and important messages in American politics,” Mendez reminded Newsom. “As the Supreme Court has noted, ‘[d]espite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate.'”
Therefore, Mendez believes Kohls will likely succeed with his claim of free speech.
We know what the First Amendment says. How about the California Constitution?
Mendez wrote:
Art. 1 Section 2(a) of California’s Constitution states that “[e]very person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects,” and “[a] law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech. . . .” Cal. Const. art I, § 2(a). Federal courts in California considering state and federal free speech claims have interpreted these rights as largely coextensive, with California’s Liberty of Speech Clause providing broader protections than the First Amendment.Under current case law, the California state right to freedom of speech is at least as protective as its federal counterpart. Given that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the federal First Amendment facial challenge, it follows that Plaintiff is also likely to succeed on his state free speech claim. In accordance with the First Amendment facial analysis discussed above, the Court finds that AB 2839 is also unconstitutional under California’s free speech provision and finds that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on his state constitutional claim.
I could never be a judge. I’m not diplomatic. I’d simply write, “Suck it, Newsom.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY