A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a recently passed California law aimed at curbing the spread of AI-generated deepfakes depicting political candidates. In his decision, Judge John Mendez wrote, “While a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape may be justified, this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment.”
TechCrunch reports that just two weeks after being signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, a key provision of California’s AB 2839 targeting AI deepfakes has been put on hold by a federal court. The law empowers California judges to order individuals spreading deepfakes of politicians to take them down or face potential penalties if the fakes are deemed likely to mislead voters.
In a decision issued this week, U.S. District Judge John Mendez sided with the plaintiff, Christopher Kohls, who had posted an AI-generated deepfake video depicting Vice President Kamala Harris. Kohls filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of AB 2839 just one day after it was enacted, arguing the faux Harris video was protected political satire under the First Amendment.
In his ruling, Judge Mendez expressed concerns that the California law was overly broad and subjective in its phrasing, potentially encompassing “vast amounts of political and constitutionally protected speech.” He noted that while concerns over manipulated digital content undermining elections may be valid, it does not give legislators free rein to restrict speech traditionally protected by the First Amendment.
“While a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape may be justified, this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment. YouTube videos, Facebook posts, and X tweets are the newspaper advertisements and political cartoons of today, and the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak regardless of the new medium these critiques may take,” Mendez wrote in his decision. He pointed out that other legal avenues, such as privacy, copyright, and defamation laws, already provide recourse for those whose reputations may be harmed by altered depictions online.
The temporary injunction prevents California Attorney General Rob Bonta from enforcing the deepfake takedown provisions of AB 2839 against Kohls or any other online speakers, with the narrow exception of fraudulent audio content. While acknowledging the state has a strong interest in preserving election integrity, Mendez ruled this was outweighed by the potential First Amendment violations and speech chilling effects experienced by Kohls and other content creators under the law.
Breitbart News previously reported that free speech advocacy group FIRE is strongly against the California law:
In targeting “deceptive” political content, California’s new law threatens satire, parody, and other First Amendment-protected speech.
A.B. 2839 bans sharing “deceptive” digitally modified content about candidates for office for any purpose. That means sharing such content even to criticize it or point out it’s fake could violate the law.
The law also requires satire and parody to be labeled, like requiring a comedian to preface every joke with an announcement he’s making a joke. That’s not funny — it’s scary.
Whatever concerns exist about AI-generated expression, violating the First Amendment isn’t the way to address them.
Read more at TechCrunch here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
