Babylon Bee Defeats Hawaii Law That Forbids Political Satire
Federal district court affirms you can make fun of politicians, even if it makes them look bad in an election year.
Satire news outlets, campaigns, and individual citizens are now free to make fun of Hawaii political candidates, following a federal district court ruling.
Last Friday, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii ruled in favor of satire news site the Babylon Bee and a Hawaii resident, Dawn O’Brien, who challenged Act 191.
Democrat Governor Josh Green signed the law in July 2024. It forbids “materially deceptive media” that have “the risk of harming the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate in an election or changing the voting behavior of voters in an election,” according to the statute. That law would have gone into effect on Monday, subjecting violators to thousands of dollars in fines and prison time.
District Judge Shanlyn Park struck down the law on Friday, calling it “unconstitutionally vague.” Judge Park also ruled its implementation would have a “chilling effect on First Amendment speech.”
“Political speech, of course, is at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect,” Judge Park wrote.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said satire and the truth are deeply intertwined.
“For centuries, humor and satire have served as an important vehicle to deliver truth with a smile, and this kind of speech receives the utmost protection under the Constitution,” ADF Legal Counsel Mathew Hoffmann stated in a news release. He argued the case in the district court.
This isn’t the first time we’ve successfully stopped a censorship law from going into effect, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.
It’s not just about us, though. We fight these laws not only because they criminalize our conduct — though that’s a pretty good reason — but because… https://t.co/E1daKbwrbs
— Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) January 31, 2026
“The court is right to put a stop to Hawaii’s war against political memes and satire,” he stated. “The First Amendment doesn’t allow Hawaii to choose what political speech is acceptable and censor speech in the name of ‘misinformation.’’
Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon also celebrated the ruling, saying “comedy” should not be treated as a “crime.”
“It’s not just about us, though,” he also wrote on X. “We fight these laws not only because they criminalize our conduct — though that’s a pretty good reason — but because they diminish everyone’s freedom.”
ADF also represented Dillon and The Babylon Bee in a successful lawsuit challenging a California law that would have regulated political parody.
The Christian legal group noted that Hawaii’s law “received extensive negative feedback during the legislative process” including from the Motion Picture Association.
The group specifically lobbied for a “parody and satire” exception, but the legislature rejected that request, according to Alliance Defending Freedom.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said satire and the truth are deeply intertwined.”
Literally a minute before reading the above comment I left a similar comment at the previous story (Trevor Noah being sued by DJT).
We should never have admitted hawaii. It’s kind of like a rich puerto rico but votes the same way. Should have kept it as a territory. Unlike puerto rico it has military value. However like the PR half of hawaii doesn’t want to be part of the US.
When Hawaii was admitted it was considered to be a Republican stronghold, and was expected to reliably vote Republican. Alaska was considered to be a Democrat stronghold. Republicans wanted to admit Hawaii without Alaska, but Democrats insisted on both or neither. Once both states could vote, the expectations quickly proved to be wrong in both cases.
Great story!
And then California said, “hold my beer”
Hawaii was a strong republican state in the early 50’s. A John Wayne movie about communists in Hawaii featured the Chief of Police Daniel S. C. Liu. But these were of the country club variety and with unionizations and push for worker’s rights…. the Left eroded this once outpost fueled by increasing tourism. The Repubs blew it. As for Alaska, it still has a strong streak of Democrats especially powered by pipeline oil and all the goodies royalties gave them. As with most states, the capital and Anchorage are purple to blue in hue,. “What did Alaska do to deserve Los Anchorage?
It has followed the same trajectory as VT from solidly R to extreme D.
We all know that the law would have been applied solely to proscribe “the risk of harming the reputation or electoral prospects of a (Democrat) candidate in an election”
Anyways, the Babylon Bee is just news that has yet to happen.
Is that your prediction?
More like an observation, but generally true
Democrat Politicians “you can’t make fun of us”
The judge was heard to comment upon leaving the courtroom, “That Goldthwait fellow was one hell of an attorney!”
Dhimmi-crat/leftist ideology doesn’t countenance mockery/ridicule, in the same manner as the ideology of “Submission;” its political bedfellow/ally.
Why was Babylon Bee challenging this? The law only applied to “materially deceptive” political media. I would think a certain paper of record that may have won a Pulitzer for some Russian collusion fraud stories would have been mildly interested in fighting this.
Well, that was fake but accurate, dontcha know?
The law would never have been used against the MSM.
In any case, satire about politics is one of the very reasons the 1st Amendment exists.
Wait, are you saying the NY Times isn’t one big satire? This is actually meant to be serious “news” reporting? Nice try but not buying it.
The law’s stated rationale of combating “materially deceptive” media was a fig leaf, as it’s obvious that the law would predictably have been weaponized against conservative media criticism, satire, mockery and ridicule, directed at Dhimmi-crat apparatchiks.
Anyway, from a legal standpoint, the subjective characterization of “materially deceptive” media is too vague to pass constitutional muster.
Odd, because I thought “materially” was a legal buzzword, with somewhat precise meaning. I would have thought any defense against this law would be easy from that point of view. Huh.
Of course, the other problem with it is that identified a special group of people for protection, which always make my constitutionalist hackles rise.
Defense against the law may be easy, but it would also be expensive. Anyone not parroting the progressive view would have to convince a court repeatedly that their view wasn’t “materially deceptive” and merely “deceptive”.
Book THAT! dano
Hawaii was run by the Dole Pineapple and cattle ranchers for generations before statehood. The indigenous Hawaiian people never liked that or them. The US allowed over 100k of Japanese to immigrate to the Islands to dilute their political votes. Despite the presence of the Japanese they were not put in interment camps, unlike the Japanese in California. Over the last 60 years there has been a movement within the Hawaiian people to diminish the “white” people’s ability to have a powerful say in the State. It’s how you get the Maize Hirono’s of the world representing them.
discrimination against whites in hawaii is practically a sport
Mexico has a law where non-Mexicans cannot legally own real estate in Mexico.
Hawaii now has practically the same arrangement against non-indigenes.
Leave a Comment