Creator of Kamala Harris Parody Video Sues California Over Election 'Deepfake' Ban (politico.com)
- Reference: 0175087343
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/09/19/2128243/creator-of-kamala-harris-parody-video-sues-california-over-election-deepfake-ban
- Source link: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/18/california-deepfake-ban-lawsuit-harris-00179975
> The creator of a video that used artificial intelligence to imitate Kamala Harris is [2]suing the state of California after Gov. Gavin Newsom [3]signed laws restricting the use of digitally altered political "deepfakes," alleging First and 14th Amendment violations. Christopher Kohls, who goes by the name "Mr Reagan" on X, has been at the center of a debate over the use of AI-generated material in elections since he posted the video in July, calling it a parody of a Harris campaign ad. It features AI-generated clips mimicking Harris' voice and saying she's the "ultimate diversity hire." The video was shared by X owner Elon Musk without calling it parody and attracted the ire of Newsom, who vowed to ban such content.
>
> The [4]suit (PDF), filed Tuesday in federal court, seeks permanent injunctions against the laws. One of the laws in question, the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act, specifies that it does not apply to satire or parody content. It requires large online platforms to remove or label deceptive, digitally altered media during certain periods before or after an election. Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement that Kohls had already labeled the post as a parody on X. "Requiring them to use the word 'parody' on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform," Gardon said. "It's unclear why this conservative activist is suing California. This new disclosure law for election misinformation isn't any more onerous than laws already passed in other states, including Alabama."
[1] https://slashdot.org/~SonicSpike
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/18/california-deepfake-ban-lawsuit-harris-00179975
[3] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/08/29/206200/california-legislature-passes-controversial-kill-switch-ai-safety-bill
[4] https://static.politico.com/1a/be/7a474b2f4e46bc5d424ca8fd1467/kohls-suit.pdf
Satire (Score:4, Informative)
It was obviously satire; here's the [1]video [x.com]—judge for yourself.
[1] https://x.com/MrReaganUSA/status/1816826660089733492
Re: (Score:2)
> It was obviously satire; here's the [1]video [x.com]—judge for yourself.
Well yeah, it's nearly 2 friggin' minutes long for one thing. These days, real ads try to get to their point before you can smash that "skip ad" link.
[1] https://x.com/MrReaganUSA/status/1816826660089733492
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious! But what was fake about it? I don't get it?
Re: (Score:1)
That was pretty funny. Joe exposed his seinility? Alliance with the Republic of North Korea? I may not know how to run the country, but that's a good thing? Significance, significant, Significance, significant, Significance, significant, Significance, significant? How could anything not think that is satire? I hope California takes a bath on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but there's a spectrum to how obvious something is. This is abused by ad companies to trick some of the dumber customers, and then in court they argue that the misleading ad is legal because a reasonable person would know they're despicable liars. I expect a similar thing will happen with AI-generated videos. I don't think our world is ready for idiots being fully convinced by a fake video that matches their prejudices, while declaring any video that they dislike an obvious fake.
On a related note, some
Re: (Score:1)
Trump voters believe all sorts of lies, so they would be the type to fall for it. as intended.
But you are right, those people shouldn't be voting.
But the party wants them to vote and wants them to believe lies. what can be done about it?
> In the US, we are citizens, not subjects
Oh, so you're also a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
> Trump voters believe all sorts of lies, so they would be the type to fall for it. as intended.
"Trump voters", huh... So, what are they going to do, press harder on the ballot when they go vote for Trump?
This sort of content was not intended for anyone on the fence. It's clearly just circle-jerk material for the MAGA hat crowd.
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:3)
Progressives are concerned they might think Harris really said she is the ultimate diversity hire and deep state puppet if stuff like this is legal. When you look at the shit Animoji and rsilvergun say, I think this might be a credible statement.
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:2)
Oh no Biden did way worse than that. He specifically stated that he would only choose a black female justice nominee. Even if you really wanted to do that, why the hell would you just go and say it? That eliminates all doubt about the justice not being there on account of being the most qualified, rather she's there because she filled in the right diversity checkboxes, and now everybody knows it.
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)ll just leave this here. LOS ANGELES, Oct. 14, 1980 -- Ronald Reagan, striving to refute charges that he is insensitive to women's rights, said today he would name a woman to "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration."
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:1)
Whenever you find yourself complaining about DEI again take a look at pictures of NASA Mission Control from the 60s and 70s. I know you like to think you have made progress and are not as racist and sexist, but you really have not. If you as white men had treated everyone equally to begin with then they would have been no need to have programs to try the fix the history of racism and sexism.
Re: (Score:3)
Voting is not an intellectual challenge and people who think it is shouldn't be voting.
Free speech is a human right recognized and protected by the first amendment. I don't think the right of free speech includes the right to deceive people whether deliberately or not. I don't think requiring someone to label their parody as parody threatens our liberty. Whether it violates the first amendment is entirely up to the corporate lawyers on the supreme court.
The real threat to liberty is that a small number of
Re: (Score:2)
> If you can't tell the difference between that sort of blatant parody video and real video without a #parody tag on it then you really shouldn't be voting.
You missed the point.
The problem is that people are pushing disinformation under the guise of parody. That ad with the fake Kamala quotes for instance, clearly it's anti-Harris. But it's done in the style of an ad playing someone's actual statements against them and it actually does have a bunch of (what I assume are real) clips of her speaking later. People sometimes say dumb things, I could forgive a lot of folks for thinking those quotes were real.
> The other side of this coin is, "let's file criminal charges against people who say Trump is Hitler because they're inciting violence". I'm cool with people saying Trump is Hitler. It's dumb but sure whatever, go for it.
No it isn't, those are completely different coins.
The Har
Re:Professor Suggon Deeznuts (Score:5, Informative)
Utter the word “cisgender” on Twitter and you’ll get account restrictions. [1]https://www.advocate.com/news/... [advocate.com]
[1] https://www.advocate.com/news/cisgender-restriction-x-twitter#toggle-gdpr
Re: (Score:2)
Should doxxing be protected speech?
Re: (Score:3)
> followed by an epic response from Elon
I'm starting to believe the real goal behind Neuralink is ultimately to fix whatever has prevented Elon Musk's brain from maturing past the point of a typical 13-year-old's.
Forgery != Parody (Score:5, Insightful)
Subject says it all. These deepfakes are closer to impersonating a police officer, or forging documents/money than they are to parody and satire.
Re: (Score:1)
No, in this case it's clear parody. I really doubt anyone rational would actually believe Kamala would label herself and I quote here, "A deepstate puppet" who's only a candidate because "Joe Biden exposed his senility at the debate. Thanks Joe".
But maybe you just aren't someone that's rational.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you don't have any Republican friends. Not sure why you got down-modded though. Because you are correct that nobody rational would think this is anything other than parody and I have no idea how a basic statement of fact would deserve negative moderation.
Re: Forgery != Parody (Score:1)
No, they are not, show me a deepfake that can reasonably cast doubt on whether it was true. The scary AI isnâ(TM)t quite that good and people are really good at picking up when things are off (uncanny valley)
Allow me to bring the Babylon Bee to this party (Score:2)
- [1]California Police Raid Seizes Over 2,000 Memes [babylonbee.com]
- [2]Governor Abbott Declares Texas Sanctuary State For Memers [babylonbee.com]
- [3]BREAKING: The Babylon Bee has obtained this exclusive, official, 100% real Gavin Newsom election ad. [x.com]
[1] https://babylonbee.com/news/california-police-raid-seizes-over-2000-memes
[2] https://babylonbee.com/news/governor-abbott-declares-texas-sanctuary-state-for-memers
[3] https://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1836518555648692570
Here's the video (Score:2)
[1]https://x.com/andre_nuta/statu... [x.com]
[1] https://x.com/andre_nuta/status/1836612929241911390
Gavin Newsom is trying to be the next Bill Clinto (Score:1)
And the last thing this country needs is another fucking Bill Clinton. The guy is literally trying to ban hemp in a state that legalized marijuana. He signed some pretty brutal anti homeless laws to without doing much of anything to actually help the homeless.
It's painfully obvious he's gearing up for a 2028 presidential run followed by a 2032 run. Assuming Trump loses he won't have much chance in 2028 but then again if Trump wins that won't be another election so it's kind of a moot point. But whatever
Newsome is Trump's mirror universe twin (Score:2)
Just listen to the two of them talk at length about anything on camera. Same mannerisms, same verbal tics, same exaggerations. Apparently the two of them actually hit it off back in '18 when Trump went out there to tour the wildfire damage, and they swore eachother to secrecy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that Trump is a barely literate moron who has not even the tiniest commitment to maintaining a democratic government. I agree with you about similarities, though. Both men are monumentally corrupt, and both have blood on their hands due to their penchant for prioritizing donors over voters.
Why it isn't right... (Score:3)
You want to do a parody? Use real actors or make sure the deepfake isn't all that deep and not a good fake.
It's not complicated, and if you have an issue with that it isn't because you're a hero fighting for free speech, it's because you're fighting for the opportunity to deceive the easily led.
Re: (Score:2)
> Use real actors or make sure the deepfake isn't all that deep and not a good fake.
Having watched it, I think they absolutely nailed the "not good" part. If somebody watches it and truly believes it's a legitimate campaign ad, that says more about the sorry state of our education system than anything else.
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
That's constitutionally-protected speech. It's irrelevant whatever Mr. Newsom thinks of it.
Re: (Score:1)
On Neo-Slashdot, parodying The Right Side of History(tm) is just not allowed. How dare they.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]https://www.the-sun.com/news/1742978/kathy-griffin-decapitated-trump-head-election/ [the-sun.com]
[2]https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/716258113/kathy-griffin-life-after-the-trump-severed-head-controversy [npr.org]
Hypocrite says what now?
[1] https://www.the-sun.com/news/1742978/kathy-griffin-decapitated-trump-head-election/
[2] https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/716258113/kathy-griffin-life-after-the-trump-severed-head-controversy
Re: (Score:1)
Was there a law made against Kathy Griffin inciting violence against Donald Trump which led to now 2 people trying to assassinate him ?
No ?
Then there is no hypocrisy in calling out the fact that Democrats are quick to legislate against criticism of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, what she did was already illegal and she did indeed get in trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
> That's constitutionally-protected speech.
>> That's for the courts.
>> There's few limits on what you say in term of political speech, but creating faked content showing others saying things they didn't say might be crossing the line.
>> Nobody is confused that Alec Baldwin's "Trump" on SNL is the real deal, so they can say anything. But if they AI deep faked it so you couldn't hear or see that it wasn't trump, and then showed it out of context -- yeah, I don't think that's going to be ok. And i don't think "it was parody" is much of a defense either.
Re: (Score:2)
"It was parody" is the ultimate defense actually.
To this day, people still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. It was actually Tina Fey who said that.
I'm sure you don't actually think Kamala Harris would call herself a "Deepstate Puppet". You're not one of the crazies that thinks Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house right ?
Re: (Score:2)
> There's few limits on what you say in term of political speech, but creating faked content showing others saying things they didn't say might be crossing the line.
Cough, [1]Campari Interview [boingboing.net], cough. The Supreme Court would like to have a [2]word with you [wikipedia.org] there.
[1] https://boingboing.net/images/falwell-hustler-first-time.jpg
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
Re: Good (Score:2)
It's fairly typical of Gavin "do as I say not as I do"som.
[1]https://www.newsweek.com/gavin... [newsweek.com]
[2]https://people.com/politics/ga... [people.com]
[3]https://calmatters.org/comment... [calmatters.org]
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-restaurant-16-hourly-wage-california-plumpjack-cafe-1886313
[2] https://people.com/politics/gavin-newsom-shares-photo-of-himself-reading-banned-books-to-figure-out-what-these-states-are-so-afraid-of/
[3] https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/08/newsom-textbook-dispute-school-closures/
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
People mock Newsom, but between his gun safety push, making California the safest state in the US, without worry about kids starting down the muzzle of an assault weapon, and the fact that California is the most prosperous US state, he is doing a pretty good job in running that state. What laws are made in California eventually get passed everywhere in the US, like CARB emissions. Like breathing without pollution? Thank California and Newsom.
Newsom got rid of the weapons, and new there are no mass shooti
Re: Good (Score:1)
Pollution in California can't be eliminated. Smog was there before and naturally exists because air off the Pacific gets trapped by the mountains. Human raised pollution made it far worse of course, and that part can be corrected.
Re: (Score:1)
You're thinking of the [1]marine layer [wikipedia.org], which is not the same thing as smog though mixed together they can be virtually indistinguishable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_layer
Re: (Score:2)
Just going to leave this here....
[1]https://californiaglobe.com/fr... [californiaglobe.com]
[1] https://californiaglobe.com/fr/california-ranks-9th-most-dangerous-states-in-america/
Re: (Score:2)
> People mock Newsom, but between his gun safety push, making California the safest state in the US, without worry about kids starting down the muzzle of an assault weapon, and the fact that California is the most prosperous US state, he is doing a pretty good job in running that state. What laws are made in California eventually get passed everywhere in the US, like CARB emissions. Like breathing without pollution? Thank California and Newsom.
> Newsom got rid of the weapons, and new there are no mass shootings in schools there. Gee whiz, how can that happen? No assault weapons, no dead kids. Amazing, isn't it?
California assault weapons ban passed in 1989. Slightly predating Newsom. Wikipedia lists 13 school shoots in California since that ban was passed. In many of those the shooter used a semi automatic rifle. Three of them occurred after Newsom become governor.
Thank Newsom for CARB? Would you believe that Reagan was the CA governor that signed the act that established that agency in 1967? Skimming through the CARB wiki entry, the only item called out since Newsom became governor was the dedication of the
Re: (Score:3)
> "Requiring them to use the word 'parody' on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform," Gardon said.
What is the argument against that?