In a win for free speech, a federal judge on Tuesday struck down California’s law on AI-generated election parody videos. The lawsuit was filed from Elon Musk, his X platform, the Babylon Bee, and video platform Rumble.
Politico reports that the ruling marks a significant victory for tech billionaire Elon Musk and his social media platform X, which had challenged the California law alongside other plaintiffs, including satirical website The Babylon Bee and conservative social media site Rumble. The decision by U.S. District Judge John Mendez deals a setback to California Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who signed the legislation last year, vowing to take action after Musk, a then-supporter of former President Donald Trump, shared a humorous video of former Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the election.
The now-invalidated law would have prohibited online platforms from hosting AI-generated content related to an election in the period leading up to the vote. Its passage came amidst growing concerns about the rapid advancement and accessibility of artificial intelligence technologies, which allow everyday users to quickly create realistic images and videos, and the potential impact on the political process. However, opponents like Musk argued that the restrictions could infringe upon freedom of expression.
In his ruling, Judge Mendez cited federal rules shielding online platforms from liability for third-party content, rather than addressing the free speech arguments central to the plaintiffs’ case. The judge determined that the California law, authored by Democratic Assembly member Marc Berman, conflicted with Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. “They don’t have anything to do with these videos that the state is objecting to,” Mendez said of sites like X that host parody videos.
Breitbart News previously reported that Judge Mendez issued a preliminary injunction against the California law, calling AI-generated videos “the political cartoons of today:”
In his ruling, Judge Mendez expressed concerns that the California law was overly broad and subjective in its phrasing, potentially encompassing “vast amounts of political and constitutionally protected speech.” He noted that while concerns over manipulated digital content undermining elections may be valid, it does not give legislators free rein to restrict speech traditionally 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. YouTube videos, Facebook posts, and X tweets are the newspaper advertisements and political cartoons of today, and the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak regardless of the new medium these critiques may take,” Mendez wrote in his decision. He pointed out that other legal avenues, such as privacy, copyright, and defamation laws, already provide recourse for those whose reputations may be harmed by altered depictions online.
Mendez also indicated his intention to overrule a second California law, which would require labels on digitally altered campaign materials and ads, on First Amendment grounds. During the hearing, the judge questioned the effectiveness of the labeling requirement, stating, “I think the statute just fails miserably in accomplishing what it would like to do.” He suggested that less restrictive approaches, less likely to chill free speech, might be preferable.
Governor Newsom’s spokesperson, Tara Gallegos, said the governor’s office was still reviewing the decision but maintained that “commonsense labeling requirements for deepfakes are important to maintain the integrity of our elections.” The California Attorney General’s office and the office of Assembly member Gail Pellerin, the Democrat who authored the second law, did not immediately provide comments.
The original challenge to the deepfake law was filed by Christopher Kohls, the creator of the controversial Kamala Harris video, on First Amendment grounds. The satirical video had depicted Harris describing herself as the “ultimate diversity hire.” X later joined the case after Musk criticized the measures as being “designed to make computer-generated parody illegal.”
Read more at Politico here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
Read the full article here