Federal Judge Blocks California's New AI Deepfake Law

Improve the News Foundation -

Facts

  • A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against California's Assembly Bill 2839 — which aimed to restrict artificial intelligence (AI) generated deepfakes in political campaigns — citing First Amendment concerns.[1][2]
  • The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 17, allowed individuals to sue for damages over AI deepfakes within 120 days of an election and up to 60 days after if the content resembled a political candidate.[2]
  • US District Judge John A. Mendez ruled that while AI and deepfakes pose significant risks, the law was likely unconstitutional and acted as a 'hammer instead of a scalpel' in hindering free expression.[3][1]
  • The lawsuit challenging the law was filed by Christopher Kohls — known as 'Mr Reagan' on X (formerly Twitter) — who created a satirical AI-generated video featuring Vice Pres. Kamala Harris that went viral after it was shared by Elon Musk.[4][1]
  • Judge Mendez agreed with Kohls' lawyer that the AI deepfake of Harris was merely satire and should be protected by the First Amendment, emphasizing the importance of the 'free and unfettered exchange of ideas.'[5]

Sources: [1]Forbes, [2]Townhall, [3]Associated Press, [4]Red State and [5]CBS.

Narratives

  • Narrative A, as provided by Los Angeles Times and The Free Speech Center. The judge's decision is a victory for free speech and protects the longstanding tradition of satire and parody in American politics. The law was an overreach that would have stifled creativity and humor, potentially infringing on constitutionally protected forms of expression. It's crucial to maintain the free exchange of ideas, even in the face of new technologies.
  • Narrative B, as provided by Brennan Center for Justice. The blocked law was necessary to protect the integrity of elections in the age of AI. Without regulations, malicious actors could use deepfakes to spread misinformation and undermine public trust in the democratic process. The state has a valid interest in safeguarding voters from deceptive content that could sway election outcomes.

Predictions