Rumble Sues California Over AB 2655, the Security Act Masked as “Deep-Fake Protection”
Elon Musk’s X and Satire Site Babylon Bee have also filed lawsuits against the California measure signed by Gov. Newsom, who was angered over an AI parody video.
Rumble, a video-sharing platform and cloud services provider, has filed a lawsuit against California’s Attorney General and Secretary of State over AB 2655, “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024 (signed into law this September).
The legislators who concocted this measure assert that it merely requires online platforms to remove or label content deemed “materially deceptive” about elections, public officials, and candidates for office. Theoretically, the rules only kick in 120 days before an election and 6o days after.
This is the meme that inspired Newsom to sign AB-2655 into law:pic.twitter.com/lk8PnvsCSy
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 19, 2024
The mandated actions for items deemed “deceptive” by the state’s government have angered Rumble and led to the lawsuit, as there are deep concerns about its abuse to censor free speech. Rumble is being represented by The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
California recently passed two laws that target and punish speakers for posting certain political commentary online. One of those laws, AB 2655, also requires large online platforms like Rumble to act as the government’s censorship police and remove such content from their sites. California is forcing Rumble to alter its speech and censor its users’ speech, while also compelling the platform’s speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
“California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler. “Rumble is one of the few online voices stepping up against this trend of censorship while other platforms and sites cave to totalitarian regimes censoring Americans. Rumble is standing for free speech even when it is hard. Other online platforms and media companies must see these laws for what they are—a threat to their existence.”
RUMBLE FIGHTS BACK: Sues CA Over Political Speech Censorship
👉 Rumble sues California, challenging censorship laws impacting free speech.
👉 The lawsuit takes issue with AB 2655 and its implications for online platforms.
⚠️ Critics label the legislation a threat to political… pic.twitter.com/EVY6dTstne— ZeroHedge Notes (@ZeroHedgeNotes) November 30, 2024
My Legal Insurrection colleague Jane Coleman reported on an earlier lawsuit brought by a YouTuber, Mr. Reagan. He runs a video site featuring parody videos, such as a fake Kamala Harris campaign ad featuring AI-generated cuts that sound just like her.
Subsequently, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 2839, a related law to AB 2655 passed at the same time. The judge, John Mendez, ruled that the law was overly broad and unconstitutional, siding with the plaintiff’s argument that it violated First Amendment rights. The court found that California has no right to restrict protected speech forms like critique, parody, and satire.
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI), which brought the YouTuber’s case, will file another one related to AB2655, which does not go into effect until January 2025.
Iconic satire site The Babylon Bee and California attorney Kelly Chang Rickert, who argued both AB 2655 and AB 2839 threatened her personal blog and social media accounts, had ADF file a lawsuit on their behalf to prevent enforcement. As with “Mr. Reagan,” the one related to AB 2839 was dropped promptly.
Because one of those laws, AB 2839, went into effect immediately, The Babylon Bee and Rickert—as well as a plaintiff in another case—asked the federal judges to immediately put that law on hold. That law applies around election time to censor digitally edited content that is “materially deceptive” and addresses candidates, elected officials, and other election material related to California elections. The law also forces speakers to include a disclaimer when posting satire and imposes severe penalties, allowing anyone who sees the content to sue and obtain attorneys’ fees, costs, and damages.
The Babylon Bee’s case against 2655 has been consolidated with another one, and is proceeding.
Elon Musk, through X Corp., has also filed a similar lawsuit in the Eastern District of California challenging Cali AB 2655, alleging it violates constitutional protections and federal law while imposing impractical burdens on online platforms.
This case marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of technology, free speech, and government regulation. X Corp.’s complaint argues that AB 2655 undermines First Amendment protections, conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and creates an unworkable framework that risks chilling free expression and stifling innovation.
At its core, AB 2655 is an attempt to address the dissemination of “materially deceptive content” during elections. Proponents of the law argue it is necessary to preserve electoral integrity in the digital age, where deepfakes and AI-generated content can spread misinformation at unprecedented speeds. However, X Corp. contends that the law is unconstitutional, overly vague, and imposes burdensome obligations on platforms that are fundamentally unworkable.
Elon Musk’s X Corp. is fighting back against California’s deepfake laws.
California law AB 2655 requires large online platforms to remove or label AI deepfakes.
X argues that this law infringes on the First Amendment by leading to widespread censorship of political speech.… pic.twitter.com/67Xzidlpbf
— Buried Y Designs (@buriedydesigns) November 15, 2024
Clearly, one prediction I can make about 2025 is that the State of California will be at the epicenter of many legal cases.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sounds to me more like Nazis trying to censor people
“…materially deceptive…” could apply to 99% of the words spoken by most Democrats every day.
So Gov. Hairgel can’t take a joke. In other news, spelunkers recently discovered that it’s dark inside a cave.
.
Not just can’t take a joke, but an abject hypocrite.
” One of those laws, AB 2655, also requires large online platforms like Rumble to act as the government’s censorship police”
This from the governor whose immigration policies live or die on the premise that local and state LEO cannot be required to enforce federal laws.
How is that hypocritical? The tenth amendment specifically protects states from the USA, not individuals from states. No one disputes that states have the authority to tell people what to do. So can the USA, but not to states.
That’s why both California and Texas have the authority to tell their cities that they’re either forbidden or required to cooperate with ICE. The same authority that allows Texas to tell Austin that it can’t be a sanctuary city allows California to tell its eastern cities that they must be.
Let me suggest though that the two probably differ in regards to how the Supremacy Clause applies. I expect that TX can tell its political subdivisions not to violate the Supremacy clause, but CA is more constrained telling its political subdivisions that they must.
Not so. The supremacy clause only applies to valid laws, and laws that compel states to comply with Congress’s wishes are not valid. It’s been firmly established in our jurisprudence for our entire history that the tenth amendment protects a state’s right to refuse to do as Congress wishes. About 200 years ago the Supreme Court said that individual state officers remain free to assist federal law enforcement if they choose, unless the state forbids them. Now that was dicta, because in the case before the court the state hadn’t forbidden it, but it was pretty direct and explicit, and states immediately pounced on it and started making laws forbidding such assistance, thus effectively turning it into a de facto holding, with no pushback from the courts. It’s about 200 years too late to change that now.
In a related note, this is interesting: Seattle Is Ordered to Stop Blocking Illegal Alien Deportations in the Most Hilarious Court Decision Ever. This links to a 9th Circuit panel decision that Includes Supremacy Grounds for rejecting King County’s (Seattle) attempt to prevent ICE from using Boeing Field to deport certain illegals. Yes. The 9th Circuit! It’s a hyper meticulous takedown of their various artful defenses. Or just go straight to the opinion: USA v King County, WA
Interesting decision. As I understand it, it makes three key points:
One is the contract under which the USA gave the airport back to the county in the first place. The USA is entitled to use the airport whenever it likes, for free; that also means it must be allowed to contract with private providers for the services that make such use possible. When the county forced those providers to refuse to deal with the USA it effectively violated its contract. (Charging landing fees also violated the contract, but the USA chose to waive its rights and pay anyway.)
Second, the services are being provided by private providers, not directly by the county, and the county is compelling those providers to refuse the USA service. The providers aren’t the county’s agents, they’re just tenants. They have a lease that allows them to provide services at the airport, which they’re in business to provide to all comers. Thus the USA isn’t seeking to compel the county to service its planes, the providers are perfectly willing to do it, and all the USA wants from the county is that it stop forcing them not to.
Third, the county isn’t allowed to discriminate against the USA, or to force its tenants to do so. It has to treat the USA just like anyone else. It doesn’t have to assist the USA or do as its told, but it can’t deny it the same treatment that it gives everyone else. E.g. it can’t ban US government vehicles from using its roads on the same basis as everyone else does. It can charge the USA the same prices as it does everyone else, but not more. Here it’s clearly discriminating, by ordering its tenants to turn down this one customer.
I keep saying: until we start building guillotines, they just gonna keep trying to pile us under this mess of bovine excrement
Back in college a guy who wasn’t ready for college got extremely upset over a pointed joke a friend of mine told. He whined so much the “Student Life” bureaucrat started talking about a ban on “misleading jokes” on the school’s computer forums.
The result was something you don’t see these days — left, right, and libertarians joined together to say “OH HELL NO!”
Gavin Noisome is just like that busybody from college.
“If you meet a man saying ‘there ought to be a law’ on the road, kill him.”
–JACKBUDDHA
Does the name Jonathan E. D. Richmond ring any bells?
Why ONLY Rumble?
What do you mean, “only Rumble”? The post clearly says that several others have also filed suit, including Elon Musk and the Babylon Bee.
It used to take millions of dollars to create hoaxes like “Russian collusion,” and now some schmoe can use AI to create a hoax for practically nothing. Newsom and his ilk are pissed off because they’ve lost their monopoly on the ability to create credible hoaxes.
I agree with Musk that the law itself is totally unworkable.
Calilornia can inly speak/act cinerning cintent generated within that state. They hve NO jurisdiction over what a platorm or poster or other content generator outside their boundarey may/may ot do/say. Such a law would be in clear violaion o the so-called “Intersate COmmerce Clause”.
Not true. First of all you’re thinking of the Dormant Commerce Clause. That may have been a valid argument as the Dormant Commerce Clause was interpreted in the 19th century, when it was thought that anything imported into a state and sold in its original packaging was not subject to that state’s laws.
That’s why in dry states you could still buy alcohol in public, but it had to be in its original packaging. The bar couldn’t pour it into a glass for you. And that’s why section 2 of the 21st amendment exists, specifically banning the importation of alcohol into dry states.
But that interpretation has been obsolete for at least a century. Nowadays as soon as a good enters a state, or a service is performed there, it is subject to state law as if it had been made there. And that includes publication on the web. If content is illegal in a state, all platforms must block access to it from that state. Which is why the 1st amendment is so important in this context, severely limiting what content can be illegal in a state.
Under these two California censorship laws, even liberal Saturday Night Live would be subject to their penalties. For over 200 years American newspapers have presented critique, parody, and satire without censorship. As a conservative, I am many times annoyed with liberal and leftist critique, parody, and satire but I would never even dream to bring the power of government to shut down their speech. Something I have come to understand is that the leftist/marxist run state of California, WWII Germany, the Soviet Union, modern day Maoist/marxist China, and the communist regimes of Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, etc. is that they are all huge fans of shutting down dissent against their anti-liberty policies through censorship. Essentially, the modern leftist/progressive/marxist Democratic Party has a deep affinty with the 20th century’s totalitarian dictatorships.
Leave a Comment