California’s new law that meant to ban “deepfake” videos and AI parody was shot down by a judge last week, which is a strike in favor of free speech. But even the judge had to not that Democrats were lying about their own law.
First, an explanation by Tech Crunch:
A federal judge blocked one of California’s new AI laws on Wednesday, less than two weeks after it was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Shortly after signing AB 2839, Newsom suggested it could be used to force Elon Musk to take down an AI deepfake of Vice President Kamala Harris he had reposted (sparking a petty online battle between the two). However, a California judge just ruled the state can’t force people to take down election deepfakes – not yet, at least.
AB 2839 targets the distributors of AI deepfakes on social media, specifically if their post resembles a political candidate and the poster knows it’s a fake that may confuse voters. The law is unique because it does not go after the platforms on which AI deepfakes appear, but rather those who spread them. AB 2839 empowers California judges to order the posters of AI deepfakes to take them down or potentially face monetary penalties.
But, much to CA Gov. Gavin Newsom’s chagrin, United States district judge John Mendez ordered a preliminary injunction to temporarily block the law as lawsuits against it run through the courts.
The judge wrote:
[W]hile 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. Other statutory causes of action such as privacy torts, copyright infringement, or defamation already provide recourse to public figures or private individuals whose reputations may be afflicted by artificially altered depictions peddled by satirists or opportunists on the internet
So, that is settled for now until the case can be fully heard.
But free speech activist Michael Shellenberger posted an excellent X thread showing how the left-wing and their accomplices in the media lies about what they are doing with censorship laws such as California’s.
On Oct 5, three days after the judge’s ruling, @nytimes published the false Sept 27 accusation in its *print* edition.
The @nytimes has still not corrected its *misinformation* or, assuming it knew on Oct 5 that the accusation was wrong, *disinformation.* https://t.co/MY8XPF18Y1
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 7, 2024
Who is the @nytimes reporter who spread the mis- and disinformation? Why he’s the reporter who covers misinformation! Because of course he is. pic.twitter.com/9AePLgsHNn
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 7, 2024
Governments almost always spread disinformation before demanding censorship. The FBI spread disinformation that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation and then demanded censorship on the basis of its disinformation: https://t.co/9wv3JtYMXw
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 7, 2024
Exactly. And both censorship and disinformation/propaganda are means to an end, which is the control of thought and behavior. https://t.co/LNpYrilBwU
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 7, 2024
More NYT misinformation debunked https://t.co/dZxE6eFoKT
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 8, 2024
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston, or Truth Social @WarnerToddHuston