Country's Strictest Ban On Election Deepfakes Struck By Judge (politico.com)
- Reference: 0178596172
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/08/06/215258/countrys-strictest-ban-on-election-deepfakes-struck-by-judge
- Source link: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/05/elon-musk-x-court-win-california-deepfake-law-00494936
> [Judge John Mendez] also said he intended to overrule a [2]second law , which would require labels on digitally altered campaign materials and ads, for violating the First Amendment. [...] The [3]first law would have blocked online platforms from hosting deceptive, AI-generated content related to an election in the run-up to the vote. It came amid heightened concerns about the rapid advancement and accessibility of artificial intelligence, allowing everyday users to quickly create more realistic images and videos, and the potential political impacts. But opponents of the measures ... also argued the restrictions could infringe upon freedom of expression.
>
> The original challenge was filed by the creator of the video, Christopher Kohls, on First Amendment grounds, with X later joining the case after [Elon Musk] said the measures were "designed to make computer-generated parody illegal." The satirical right-wing news website the Babylon Bee and conservative social media site Rumble also joined the suit. Mendez said the first law, penned by Democratic state Assemblymember Marc Berman, conflicted with the oft-cited Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability for what third parties post on their sites. "They don't have anything to do with these videos that the state is objecting to," Mendez said of sites like X that host deepfakes.
>
> But the judge did not address the First Amendment claims made by Kohls, saying it was not necessary in order to strike down the law on Section 230 grounds. "I'm simply not reaching that issue," Mendez told the plaintiffs' attorneys. [...] "I think the statute just fails miserably in accomplishing what it would like to do," Mendez said, adding he would write an official opinion on that law in the coming weeks. Laws restricting speech have to pass a strict test, including whether there are less restrictive ways of accomplishing the state's goals. Mendez questioned whether approaches that were less likely to chill free speech would be better. "It's become a censorship law and there is no way that is going to survive," Mendez added.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/05/elon-musk-x-court-win-california-deepfake-law-00494936
[2] https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB2839/2023
[3] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2655
Judge is a fool (Score:4, Informative)
This is not a free speech issue, it is a slander issue. The entire point of deepfake is to make people think something was said or done that did not happen. By definition it is an attempt to slander, not parody.
The law lets you say anything you want as long as YOU are saying it. It prevents you from making a claim that someone else said or did something they did not do.
Parody is still legal, you just can't do it so well that people think it is NOT a parody.
Nothing stops anyone from making a puppet or cartoon deep fake. Or cubist. Or a thousand other ways to do a deep fake for non-slander purposes
Just look at South Park. They do a great parody of Trump, but no one thinks they are actually viewing Trump in a homosexual relationship with Satan.
We all know the real tape will never be seen.
Re: (Score:1)
Correction: deepfakes in ads are probably there to slander. Existing laws against slander are more than sufficient to keep that illegal. New laws against deepfakes in general are about a lot more than that. It's the usual anti-sex Christians teaming up with antisex Feminists given a boost by the many, many authoritarians that want to ban deepfakes in general.
designed to make computer-generated parody illegal (Score:2)
The claim by the plaintiff is that the law was, "designed to make computer-generated parody illegal." With the implication that this is unacceptable, and that the law should be struck down for this reason. ... Why don't we just do this explicitly? Computer generated parody does not provide an avenue of expression, it does not enrich our lives, it does not educate us or enlighten us, it does not serve any meaningful purpose.
And, all these robots with their foreign parts are taking jobs from our honest Ame
S230 protects the platform holder (Score:2)
But like how the dmca works they can still be ordered to take down illegal content. They just aren't going to be punished for having it hosted in the first place
The problem is as a matter of practicality there's too much illegal content to be taken down that way bit by bit.
And I am not personally willing to give up s230 in order to get at deepfakes by holding platform holders legally liable for hosting them. Section 230 along with net neutrality are the two pillars that make a free internet work in
Another idiot who doesn't understand (Score:2)
which would require labels on digitally altered campaign materials and ads, for violating the First Amendment.
It does no such thing. It is not prohibiting speech in any manner. The only thing it does is to notify the viewer the ads were digitally altered. The message is still there for everyone to see.
This is no different than requiring a notice on certain junk food to say, "Not actual size" for the product inside the package. No one would consider this a violation of the First Amendment, and neither is
Warning label: "Deepfake porn: Not actual size" (Score:2)
Sounds about right...
free speech for all except for porn (Score:3)
> "It's become a censorship law and there is no way that is going to survive," Mendez added.
What's this judge's opinion on all the porn censorship laws enacted? Why isn't anyone putting those cases in front of him? republicans do it with that partisan, corrupt texas judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk.
Why not just make a law that makes it necessary to be 18 or older to view deepfake bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
Because California is not a puritan anti porn state, and he is a Californian judge.
Re: free speech for all except for porn (Score:2)
That's not exactly true, California places all kinds of restrictions on porn. For example, it's illegal to film bareback porn here.
But the collie fucker has a point. I don't know that age restrictions count as censorship, though in general I'm opposed to them on privacy grounds. While I don't agree with his stance on collie porn, I will defend his right to make his stance known.
Re: free speech for all except for porn (Score:2)
Wrong. You can film bareback porn in CA. Just not in LA county. There have been those that interpret Cal/OSHA regulations to require condom use, it hasn't been settled in court yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why one would interpret Cal OSHA to require condom use, when there are other tools available, some arguably more reliable than condoms, such as PrEP, DoxyPEP, TasP, oral contraceptives, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to lookup collie. Not sure how dogs became part of the conversation.
I think you have to distinguish acts that are illegal from publishing content depicting those acts, though.
I would say age restrictions count as censorship. Making AI deepfakes legal only for those 100 years and older would be censorship, for example.
The bareback porn restriction is not California wide. And also is really non sensical