Judge Blocks California's New AI Law In Case Over Kamala Harris Deepfake (techcrunch.com)
- Reference: 0175186663
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/10/03/2024224/judge-blocks-californias-new-ai-law-in-case-over-kamala-harris-deepfake
- Source link: https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/02/judge-blocks-californias-new-ai-law-in-case-over-kamala-harris-deepfake-musk-reposted/
> A federal judge [1]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.
>
> Perhaps unsurprisingly, the original poster of that AI deepfake -- an X user named Christopher Kohls -- [2]filed a lawsuit to block California's new law as unconstitutional just a day after it was signed. Kohls' lawyer wrote in a complaint that the deepfake of Kamala Harris is satire that should be protected by the First Amendment. On Wednesday, United States district judge John Mendez sided with Kohls. Mendez ordered a preliminary injunction to temporarily block California's attorney general from enforcing the new law against Kohls or anyone else, with the exception of audio messages that fall under AB 2839. [...] In essence, he ruled the law is simply too broad as written and could result in serious overstepping by state authorities into what speech is permitted or not.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/02/judge-blocks-californias-new-ai-law-in-case-over-kamala-harris-deepfake-musk-reposted/
[2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/09/19/2128243/creator-of-kamala-harris-parody-video-sues-california-over-election-deepfake-ban
Okay, but ... (Score:2)
> Kohls' lawyer wrote in a complaint that the deepfake of Kamala Harris is satire that should be protected by the First Amendment.
I haven't seen the post, is it labeled "satire" or are they just calling it that after the fact -- like people saying they were "just being sarcastic" after being called out on something they said? If it was labeled, or clearly, so then, ya, 1st Amendment. But deepfakes are often (usually?) meant to fool people -- otherwise one wouldn't need to use them. IRL people doing impressions for comedic / satirical purposes aren't trying to be *exactly* like the person they're impersonating to fool others into b
Re: (Score:2)
There was a lot of discussion just about this [1]two weeks ago on Slashdot [slashdot.org]. [2]Here's the link to the video [x.com]. I'm a Kamala supporter and I wouldn't have believe most of the video. The question is whether one thinks it's satire or misinformation. I guess the having the label like on the Campari ad I referenced to in the previous discussion may have helped it, but it's not necessary if most people's take on something is that it's fake or satire.
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/09/19/2128243/creator-of-kamala-harris-parody-video-sues-california-over-election-deepfake-ban
[2] https://x.com/MrReaganUSA/status/1816826660089733492
Re: (Score:1)
Go see it. It is obviously humorous. You'd have to be completely brain dead to miss the joke.
The law doesn't require things get labeled or tagged as satire to get legal protection as satire. That's some bizarre modern social media made up thing, not a legal argument for court.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite obviously, clearly satire. It's got her saying a whole bunch of stupid shit - much of it things she's literally said, but framed within the context of it being a campaign ad and not just stupid things she's said.
I suppose the only way you could think it wasn't satire is if you're admitting that she's completely unhinged and stupid and that's the best she can do. Which, I suppose, is up for debate.
Of course, now I can't find it - it appears to have been memoryholed by the search engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Harris would actually say "I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire" or "I had four years under the tutelage of the ultimate deep state puppet, a wonderful mentor, Joe Biden"? Or is it clear that somebody was impersonating her to criticize her?
Incoming!!! (Score:2)
I wonder how fast this situation would change if somebody concocted a deepfake of Elon Musk fellating Donald Trump, while JD Vance hammered away at him from behind, gave him the back-scuttle he never knew he wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the judge a member of the Log Cabin Republicans?
Re: (Score:1)
Shit like that gets posted all the time. Nothing happens. Why do you think anything would happen?
People threaten to kill the president online and sometimes, not always, they get an FBI visit to discuss it but nothing more than that ever happens. And that shit is actually criminal. Someone makes a homoerotic meme and you think the law is suddenly going to change and we'll end the 1A?
Ok.
Good (Score:2)
Attempts to erode free speech are more concerning than any other attacks on liberty. You can argue until you're blue in the face about all of the horrible things that might happen, but the best defense against those is a populace used to dealing with bullshit and capable of detecting it as opposed to any policy that tries to save them for their own good. That said, I don't think that it was actually intended to survive any judicial review though.
I think that Newsom only did this to create a Streisand Eff
XXX (Score:2)
On X, Deep Fakes of Kamala Harris are Free Speech, but posting facts about JD Vance gets you banned.
Suggestion... start deepfaking Klan Judge Mendez. (Score:1, Troll)
Pretty simple, we'll find out fast if republican-appointed Klan Judge Mendez thinks differently when he's the target of the so-called "satire."
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know this announcement by him wasn't AI? It's almost like people should be allowed to do it as long as it's labeled so nobody is confused. You know, like advertising laws.
Re: Suggestion... start deepfaking Klan Judge Mend (Score:1)
Why do people always think this is some kind of gotcha? If I am the judge, I wouldn't care one bit. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. The speech that we don't like is exactly the kind of speech we must protect, no?
Re: Suggestion... start deepfaking Klan Judge Men (Score:3)
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech until it becomes defamation
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Put up a deepfake video of Trump screaming demands that ALL ebil democrats get arrested so they can be sent to "reeducation camps" along with bringing back non-white slavery and saying all non-christians will be forced to convert or be imprisoned.
Or just put up a video of Trump saying all women will be forced to become mothers by the government. Failure will mean being locked up until they get pregnant and give birth.
See how long it takes Elon to take that video down.
See how long it takes the judge
Re: (Score:1)
The standards for defamation against public figures such as politicians, celebrities, (and yes federal judges) are very high. It's almost impossible to win a defamation suit if you're a public figure.
In the case of this fake campaign ad, it was obviously satire, which adds an additional layer of legal protection. Note that -no one- went after the guy for making or publishing it. Where did the Harris campaign file charges against him or legally demand that it be taken down? No where. The guy is covered