Gavin Newsom is a sour puss. He does not like satire, jokes or humor. So much so, he signed a bill to outlaw this form of humor. Of course, it will be government that decides if a joke or mem is illegal—just like they do in dictatorships.
“The controversy began when Kohls posted a satirical video parodying Vice President Kamala Harris, which quickly caught the attention of California Governor Gavin Newsom. Following the video’s viral spread, largely due to a share by Elon Musk, Governor Newsom criticized the content, leading to the swift passage of AB 2655, the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” and AB 2839, related to “Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.”
Kohls’ lawsuit argues that these laws unjustly target political satire, a traditionally protected form of speech, by imposing strict regulations on AI-generated content that parodies or critiques political figures. “Political satire is a fundamental First Amendment right,” correctly states the lawsuit, emphasizing the role of such expression in American political discourse.”
Harris, the candidate that laughs and is the Cacklin VP, can’t answer questions—so this is how she stops the jokes about her.
Gavin Newsom Just Signed an AI-Deepfake Ban That Could Impact Free Speech. This Is the First Lawsuit Against It.
Dan Frieth, Reclaim the Net, 9/18/24 https://reclaimthenet.org/newsom-just-signed-an-ai-deepfake-ban-first-lawsuit-against-it
We were waiting for California Governor Gavin Newsom to sign on the dotted line of a new controversial bill that limits speech around AI “deepfake” content that many believe could impact memes. Now that Newsom has signed the bill, the first of several lawsuits against the censorial bills can be filed.
Christopher Kohls, an online content creator known for his political satire, has filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging recent legislation aimed at regulating AI-generated content. The lawsuit seeks to strike down two California laws which Kohls claims infringe upon First Amendment rights.
Read the lawsuit here.
The controversy began when Kohls posted a satirical video parodying Vice President Kamala Harris, which quickly caught the attention of California Governor Gavin Newsom. Following the video’s viral spread, largely due to a share by Elon Musk, Governor Newsom criticized the content, leading to the swift passage of AB 2655, the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” and AB 2839, related to “Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.”
Kohls’ lawsuit argues that these laws unjustly target political satire, a traditionally protected form of speech, by imposing strict regulations on AI-generated content that parodies or critiques political figures. “Political satire is a fundamental First Amendment right,” correctly states the lawsuit, emphasizing the role of such expression in American political discourse.
The specific legislation in question, AB 2655 and AB 2839, require social media platforms to block and prevent the dissemination of AI-generated videos that could potentially harm a candidate’s reputation or mislead voters. Kohls contends that these laws are not only overly broad but also set a dangerous precedent for free speech, particularly in how they regulate content based on its content and viewpoint.
“AB 2655 and AB 2839 place an unconstitutional burden on free speech,” Kohls asserts in his complaint. He further claims that the laws are not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, a standard required for such restrictive measures.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the regulation of digital content and free expression as AI and other technologies become increasingly embedded in the fabric of communication and political commentary.
Governor Newsom’s office has defended the legislation, arguing that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of elections from the potential harms posed by deepfake technologies and AI-driven disinformation. However, critics of the legislation, including free speech advocates and technology experts, warn of the chilling effects these laws could have on legitimate, protected forms of expression.
