The law – Assembly Bill 2839 – allowed any person to sue distributors of artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes within 120 days of an election and up to 60 days after if the perpetrator's post resembled a political candidate.
United States District Judge John A. Mendez said AI and deepfakes pose significant risks, but he ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment.
"Most of A.B. 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate," Mendez wrote. (Related: AI-generated deepfakes are beginning to sway public opinion all over the world.)
The law took effect immediately after California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it. The Democrat signed two other bills at the time aimed at cracking down on the use of AI to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the toughest laws of their kind in the nation.
The decision comes from a case involving Christopher Kohls, known as "Mr Reagan" on X. He created a controversial AI-altered campaign video back in July mocking Vice President Kamala Harris. This video went viral and was even shared by X owner Elon Musk.
A lawyer representing Kohls filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber to block the new law a day after Newsom signed it into law.
Judge: Fear of digitally manipulated media does not give California the right to suppress free speech
Existing laws only prohibit the distribution of materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate within 60 days of an election. The new law expands the ban to 120 days before an election in California and, in some cases, 60 days after an election is held.
Newsom also signed two other laws aimed at taking down political AI deepfakes on the same day, though they won't be in effect until January. The law allows California judges to order distributors of AI deepfakes to take them down or potentially face monetary penalties.
Mendez said Kohls is "likely to succeed on his state constitutional claim" and granted the motion for a preliminary injunction on Oct. 2. Mendez agreed with Kohls' lawyer that the AI deepfake of Harris was merely "satire" that should be protected by the First Amendment.
"While a well-founded 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," said Mendez
Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech.
"We're confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes," he said in a statement. "Satire remains alive and well in California – even for those who miss the punchline."
Visit Glitch.news for similar stories about the spread of AI technology and their use in politics.
Watch this short report from PBS discussing how deepfake videos are becoming increasingly difficult to spot.
This video is from the MyOpinionCounts channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
Tom Hanks warns against AI-generated DEEPFAKE ADS of him selling drugs.
U.S. government using DEEPFAKES to wage psychological war on the public.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
