The Moscow inspired Newsom/Democrat “misinformation” law has temporarily been stopped. The effort by Democrats to end free speech in California is on hold.
“A federal judge ruled Wednesday that California’s law prohibiting altered election-related communications doesn’t pass constitutional scrutiny and the state can’t enforce it.
The decision by U.S. District Senior Judge John Mendez to issue a preliminary injunction is a win for Christopher Kohls, known online as “Mr. Reagan,” who argued in his lawsuit that Assembly Bill 2839 made computer-generated parody illegal.
Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat, wrote the law banning digitally manipulated communications, like mailers and video ads, that are false or misleading and target an election worker, elected official, voting equipment or people running for office four months before an election. People who receive such content would be able to seek damages from the distributor.
Kohls, who has some 360,000 YouTube subscribers, calls political satire a fundamental First Amendment right. His suit is similar to one filed Monday in federal court by conservative humor website The Babylon Bee, which targeted two bills, one of them being AB 2839.”
Yes, Newsom is demanding that satire—hence humor—be outlawed in California. So, if a TV show from New York has political satire, the California AG could have then arrested!
Why are Democrats afraid of humor?
Federal judge stops implementation of California misinformation law
The judge ruled that one aspect of Assembly Bill 2839 did pass muster, but he enjoined the remainder of the law.
Alan Riquelmy, Courthousenews, 10/2/24 https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-stops-implementation-of-california-misinformation-law/
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that California’s law prohibiting altered election-related communications doesn’t pass constitutional scrutiny and the state can’t enforce it.
The decision by U.S. District Senior Judge John Mendez to issue a preliminary injunction is a win for Christopher Kohls, known online as “Mr. Reagan,” who argued in his lawsuit that Assembly Bill 2839 made computer-generated parody illegal.
Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat, wrote the law banning digitally manipulated communications, like mailers and video ads, that are false or misleading and target an election worker, elected official, voting equipment or people running for office four months before an election. People who receive such content would be able to seek damages from the distributor.
Kohls, who has some 360,000 YouTube subscribers, calls political satire a fundamental First Amendment right. His suit is similar to one filed Monday in federal court by conservative humor website The Babylon Bee, which targeted two bills, one of them being AB 2839.
“We are gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis that new technologies do not change the principles behind First Amendment protections,” Theodore Frank, one of Kohls’ attorneys, said in a statement.
An attorney for the state attorney general and secretary of state couldn’t be reached for comment.
The suit filed by Kohls, who satirizes political figures online, points to a video he made that used a computer-generated voiceover for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. In that video, “Harris” called herself a “diversity hire” and made other hyperbolic statements.
Elon Musk — the owner of Tesla, SpaceX and social media giant X, formerly Twitter — shared the video on July 26. Two days later, Governor Gavin Newsom posted on X that he’d soon sign a bill outlawing content like it.
But the law doesn’t use the least restrictive method available for advancing the state’s interest, Mendez, a George W. Bush appointee, said in his order. California instead could have used counter speech as opposed to an outright ban on certain communications.
“While California has a valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process, AB 2839 is unconstitutional because it lacks the narrow tailoring and least restrictive alternative that a content-based law requires under strict scrutiny,” Mendez wrote.
The defendants argue that the law restricts mischaracterizations that aren’t protected by the First Amendment. However, Mendez wrote that while their argument was a restriction on defamatory statements, the word “defamation” doesn’t appear in the law. Instead, its scope includes deceptive communications that are likely to hurt a candidate’s reputation or electoral chances.
Mendez said the law targets speech about certain topics, making it a content-based restriction that limits public discourse.
While the law covers altered content about elections officials, voting machines and other equipment that could undermine confidence in an election, it provides no method to measure the effects of an altered election-related communications.
“Even if AB 2839 were only targeted at knowing falsehoods that cause tangible harm, these falsehoods as well as other false statements are precisely the types of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the judge wrote. “In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that even deliberate lies (said with ‘actual malice’) about the government are constitutionally protected.”
The Eastern District of California judge wrote that he gave significant weight to the fact that the Legislature has an interest in maintaining free and fair elections. However, achieving that interest must occur by a narrowly tailored method.
“Supreme Court precedent illuminates that 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,” Mendez wrote.
The judge also pointed to a requirement in the law that a parody or satire video must have a disclaimer on it for its duration. That disclaimer can’t be smaller than the largest font used in the video, which in Kohls’ case would make his content almost unwatchable.
Mendez ruled that one aspect of the law did pass muster: If content is audio only, a disclosure must be read at the start and end of the recording, and at two-minute intervals if the recording is longer than two minutes.
“The court acknowledges that the risks posed by artificial intelligence and deepfakes are significant, especially as civic engagement migrates online and disinformation proliferates on social media,” Mendez wrote.
“However, most of AB 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,” he added.
