California Gov. Newsom eagerly passed a law against parodies which would have gutted free speech. Federal Judge John Mendez just struck down the law and found the entire law unsalvageable. He called the law, Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, unconstitutional.
It started with Christopher Kohls, who goes by “Mr Reagan” on X. The satirist created a parody of Kamala Harris using AI. Kohls sued, arguing the governor is trying to make computer-generated parody illegal and asserting that political satire is a “fundamental First Amendment Right.”
Zero Hedge Report:
In Kohls v. Bonta, Senior U.S. District Judge John Mendez has rebuked the state for a law that he concluded had to be rejected in its entirety as flawed to its core: “No parts of this statute are severable because the whole statute is preempted. No parts of A.B. 2655 can be salvaged.”
An example of the challengers was described by the court:
“Plaintiff Christopher Kohls (aka “Mr. Reagan”) is an individual who creates digital content about political figures. His videos contain demonstrably false information that include sounds or visuals that are significantly edited or digitally generated using artificial intelligence …. Plaintiff’s videos are considered by him to be parody or satire. In response to videos posted by Plaintiff parodying presidential candidate Kamala Harris and other AI generated “deepfakes,” the California legislature enacted AB 2839. AB 2839, according to Plaintiff, would allow any political candidate, election official, the Secretary of State, and everyone who sees his AI-generated videos to sue him for damages and injunctive relief during an election period which runs 120 days before an election to 60 days after an election….”
Social media companies like X Corp. challenged Assembly Bill 2655, which requires certain platforms to remove “materially deceptive content” about political candidates, elections officials, and elected officers.
Challengers argued that federal law gives service providers immunity from suits stemming from content created by a third party. They also argued that the law violated the First Amendment.
Mendez agreed with the companies that the law “punishes [social media companies] for doing something that they’re clearly protected by [the Communications Decency Act] from doing.”
Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, representing plaintiffs the Babylon Bee and Kelly Chang Rickert, argued the required disclaimer under the law constituted compelled speech because it changes what the content creator wants to say: “A disclaimer kills the joke.”
It is no secret Democrats no longer support the 1st Amendment and heartily dislike memes. They put a man in prison for a joke meme about Hillary and voting. He (Douglas Mackey) faced ten years in prison but served under a year, probably because of the blowback. Prosecutors wanted him in prison for years. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction.
The suit, filed in September in federal court, seeks permanent injunctions against the laws.
The left-wing media is presenting the act called Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act in a deceptive manner. They claim it only requires labeling a parody as a parody. That isn’t true. It’s much worse than that.
I would love to kick Newscums teeth in.
“Defending freedom” means taking away freedom.
Democrat double-speak is just plain telling lies. He belongs to his father the Devil, a liar and murderer from the beginning, “the Father of lies.”