Federal Judge Blocks California's New Law on Election Deepfakes, Citing First Amendment Concerns

Judge blocks new California law cracking down on election deepfakes

A new California law allowing any person to sue for damages over election deepfakes has been put on pause after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking it. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks, but he ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment. "Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate," Mendez wrote. The law took effect immediately after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it last month at the Salesforce Dreamforce conference in San Francisco. The Democrat also signed two other bills at the time aimed at cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the toughest laws of their kind in the nation. Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech. "We're confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes," he said in a statement. "Satire remains alive and well in California -- even for those who miss the punchline." But a lawyer representing YouTuber Christopher Kohls, who sued state officials over the law, called the ruling "straightforward." "We are gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis that new technologies do not change the principles behind First Amendment protections," attorney Theodore Frank said. The law was also unpopular among First Amendment experts, who urged Newsom last month to veto the measure. They argued that the law is unconstitutional and a government overreach. "If something is truly defamatory, there's a whole body of law and established legal standards for how to prove a claim for defamation consistent with the First Amendment," David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said in an interview in September. "The government is not free to create new categories of speech outside the First Amendment."

Judge blocks new California law cracking down on election deepfakes

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A new California law allowing any person to sue for damages over election deepfakes has been put on pause after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking it. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks, but he ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment. "Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate," Mendez wrote. The law took effect immediately after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it last month. The Democrat signed two other bills at the time aimed at cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the toughest laws of their kind in the nation. Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech. "We're confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes," he said in a statement. "Satire remains alive and well in California -- even for those who miss the punchline." But a lawyer representing YouTuber Christopher Kohls, who sued state officials over the law, called the ruling "straightforward." "We are gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis that new technologies do not change the principles behind First Amendment protections," attorney Theodore Frank said. The law was also unpopular among First Amendment experts, who urged Newsom last month to veto the measure. They argued that the law is unconstitutional and a government overreach. "If something is truly defamatory, there's a whole body of law and established legal standards for how to prove a claim for defamation consistent with the First Amendment," David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said in an interview in September. "The government is not free to create new categories of speech outside the First Amendment."

California's new AI deepfakes law gets blocked by a federal judge. Here's why

A new California law allowing any person to sue for damages over election deepfakes has been put on pause after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking it. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks, but he ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment. "Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate," Mendez wrote. The law took effect immediately after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it last month. The Democrat signed two other bills at the time aimed at cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the toughest laws of their kind in the nation. Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech. "We're confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes," he said in a statement. "Satire remains alive and well in California -- even for those who miss the punchline." But a lawyer representing YouTuber Christopher Kohls, who sued state officials over the law, called the ruling "straightforward." "We are gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis that new technologies do not change the principles behind First Amendment protections," attorney Theodore Frank said. The law was also unpopular among First Amendment experts, who urged Newsom last month to veto the measure. They argued that the law is unconstitutional and a government overreach. "If something is truly defamatory, there's a whole body of law and established legal standards for how to prove a claim for defamation consistent with the First Amendment," David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said in an interview in September. "The government is not free to create new categories of speech outside the First Amendment."

Judge blocks new California law cracking down on election deepfakes

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A new California law allowing any person to sue for damages over election deepfakes has been put on pause after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking it. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks, but he ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment. "Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate," Mendez wrote. The law took effect immediately after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it last month. The Democrat signed two other bills at the time aimed at cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the toughest laws of their kind in the nation. Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech. "We're confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes," he said in a statement. "Satire remains alive and well in California -- even for those who miss the punchline." But a lawyer representing YouTuber Christopher Kohls, who sued state officials over the law, called the ruling "straightforward." "We are gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis that new technologies do not change the principles behind First Amendment protections," attorney Theodore Frank said. The law was also unpopular among First Amendment experts, who urged Newsom last month to veto the measure. They argued that the law is unconstitutional and a government overreach. "If something is truly defamatory, there's a whole body of law and established legal standards for how to prove a claim for defamation consistent with the First Amendment," David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said in an interview in September. "The government is not free to create new categories of speech outside the First Amendment."

Judge blocks new California law cracking down on election deepfakes

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A new California law allowing any person to sue for damages over election deepfakes has been put on pause after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking it. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks, but he ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment. "Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate," Mendez wrote. The law took effect immediately after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it last month. The Democrat signed two other bills at the time aimed at cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the toughest laws of their kind in the nation. Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech. "We're confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes," he said in a statement. "Satire remains alive and well in California -- even for those who miss the punchline." But a lawyer representing YouTuber Christopher Kohls, who sued state officials over the law, called the ruling "straightforward." "We are gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis that new technologies do not change the principles behind First Amendment protections," attorney Theodore Frank said. The law was also unpopular among First Amendment experts, who urged Newsom last month to veto the measure. They argued that the law is unconstitutional and a government overreach. "If something is truly defamatory, there's a whole body of law and established legal standards for how to prove a claim for defamation consistent with the First Amendment," David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said in an interview in September. "The government is not free to create new categories of speech outside the First Amendment."

California's new law against election deepfakes blocked by judge over free speech worries

A new California law allowing any person to sue for damages over election deepfakes has been put on pause after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking it. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks, but he ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment. "Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate," Mendez wrote. The law took effect immediately after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it last month. The Democrat signed two other bills at the time aimed at cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the toughest laws of their kind in the nation. Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech. "We're confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes," he said in a statement. "Satire remains alive and well in California -- even for those who miss the punchline." But a lawyer representing YouTuber Christopher Kohls, who sued state officials over the law, called the ruling "straightforward." "We are gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis that new technologies do not change the principles behind First Amendment protections," attorney Theodore Frank said. The law was also unpopular among First Amendment experts, who urged Newsom last month to veto the measure. They argued that the law is unconstitutional and a government overreach. "If something is truly defamatory, there's a whole body of law and established legal standards for how to prove a claim for defamation consistent with the First Amendment," David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said in an interview in September. "The government is not free to create new categories of speech outside the First Amendment."

Judge Blocks California's Deepfake Crackdown Law

A new California law allowing any person to sue for damages over election deepfakes has been put on pause after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking it. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks, but he ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment. "Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate," Mendez wrote. The law took effect immediately after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it last month. The Democrat signed two other bills at the time aimed at cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the toughest laws of their kind in the nation. Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech.

Judge Blocks New California Law Cracking Down on Election Deepfakes

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A new California law allowing any person to sue for damages over election deepfakes has been put on pause after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking it. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks, but he ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment. "Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate," Mendez wrote. The law took effect immediately after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it last month. The Democrat signed two other bills at the time aimed at cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the toughest laws of their kind in the nation. Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech. "We're confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes," he said in a statement. "Satire remains alive and well in California -- even for those who miss the punchline." But a lawyer representing YouTuber Christopher Kohls, who sued state officials over the law, called the ruling "straightforward." "We are gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis that new technologies do not change the principles behind First Amendment protections," attorney Theodore Frank said. The law was also unpopular among First Amendment experts, who urged Newsom last month to veto the measure. They argued that the law is unconstitutional and a government overreach. "If something is truly defamatory, there's a whole body of law and established legal standards for how to prove a claim for defamation consistent with the First Amendment," David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said in an interview in September. "The government is not free to create new categories of speech outside the First Amendment." Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Judge Blocks California’s New Anti-AI Deepfake Election Bill

A California judge has blocked a bill that would punish people who knowingly spread deepfake videos online, saying it’s a threat to free speech. A judge in California ordered a preliminary injunction against AB 2839, a new California law that would punish people who knowingly share election related deepfakes online. According to Judge John Mendez of the Eastern District of California, the new law likely violates the First Amendment. On July 26, Elon Musk shared a video of Kamala Harris on X that had been manipulated using AI. The parody campaign spot had altered Harris’s voice to say things she’d never said and likely would never say. Two days later, California Governor Gavin Newsom said in his own post on X that manipulating a voice like that for an ad should be illegal. “I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is,†he wrote. Newsom made good on the promise and signed 18 different AI related laws in mid September. One of them was AB 2839, which targets the people who post and share AI deepfakes of political candidates online. Those convicted of knowingly spreading election-related deepfakes in California could be forced to take the posts down and pay civil monetary penalties. A day after Newsom signed AB 2839, Christopher Kohls filed a lawsuit in California arguing it was unconstitutional. Kohls goes by “Mr Reagan†online and is the person who created the parody Harris campaign ad that Musk shared on X. His argument was simple. Punishing him for posting election related deepfakes violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. Judge Mendez agreed with him. The temporary injunction does not overturn the law, but blocks its effects until Kohls lawsuit is resolved. According to Mendez, Kohls will probably win. “AB 2839 does not pass constitutional scrutiny because the law does not use the least restrictive means available for advancing the State’s interest here,†Mendez said in the ruling. “As Plaintiffs persuasively argue, counter speech is a less restrictive alternative to prohibiting videos such as those posted by Plaintiff, no matter how offensive or inappropriate someone may find them.†Mendez had several criticisms of the law, including that it was too broad. “Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the internet, could be considered harmful,†he said. “For example, AI-generated approximate numbers on voter turnout could be considered false content that reasonably undermines confidence in the outcome of an election under this statute. On the other hand, many â€~harmful’ depictions when shown to a variety of individuals may not ultimately influence electoral prospects or undermine confidence in an election at all.†He also noted that Supreme Court precedent has long been on the side of free speech when faced with thorny issues around public figures. Even when people knowingly spread false information. “Even if AB 2839 were only targeted at knowing falsehoods that cause tangible harm, these falsehoods as well as other false statements are precisely the types of speech protected by the First Amendment,†he said. For precedent, Mendez leaned on The New York Times v. Sullivan, a famous Civil Rights-era case. In 1960, The New York Times published a full page ad from Martin Luther King Jr. supporters that called about the police of Montgomery, Alabama. Some of the facts in the ad were wrong and the police sued. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Times won. “These same principles safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered: civil penalties for criticisms on the government like those sanctioned by AB 2839 have no place in our system of governance,†Mendez said. Mendez said that he understood California was worried about deepfakes, but that AB 2839 was an overreaction to the problem. “Supreme Court precedent illuminates that 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," he said. "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.â€

Judge finds new California election deepfake ban unconstitutional

A federal court judge has put a preliminary injunction over a two-week-old California law that effectively bans election deepfakes. The law -- AB 2839 -- allowed any person to sue for damages over AI deepfakes if the perpetrator's post resembles a political candidate within 120 days of an election and up to 60 days after. Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks but said the law is "unconstitutional" as it likely violates the First Amendment. "The Court finds that AB 2839 is also unconstitutional under California's free speech provision." The decision comes from a case involving Christopher Kohls, known as "Mr Reagan" on X, who created a controversial AI-altered campaign video mocking United States Vice President Kamala Harris in July that was later shared by X's executive chairman Elon Musk. A lawyer representing Kohls filed a lawsuit against California's Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber to block the new California law a day after California Governor Gavin Newsom signed it into law on Sept. 17. The law allows California judges to order distributors of AI deepfakes to take them down or potentially face monetary penalties. Mendez said that Kohls is "likely to succeed on his state constitutional claim," and granted the motion for a preliminary injunction on Oct. 2. "Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate." Mendez further agreed with Kohls' lawyer that Kohls' AI deepfake of Harris was merely "satire" that should be 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." Related: OpenAI's move to for-profit: Is it really 'illegal'? Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a free speech activist, viewed the court ruling as a win. AB 2839 is one of several new AI-related laws that has hit Newsom's desk in recent months. Newsom recently vetoed the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act -- SB 1047 -- on Sept. 30, which proposed mandatory safety testing of AI models. Newsom said that "while well-intentioned," SB 1047 could place unnecessary restrictions on emerging AI companies in California.

Judge blocks new California law barring distribution of election-related AI deepfakes

YouTube videos, Facebook posts and X tweets are protected by the First Amendment, the judge ruled. One of California's new AI laws, which aims to prevent AI deepfakes related to elections from spreading online, has been blocked a month before the US presidential elections. As TechCrunch and Reason report, Judge John Mendez has issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the state's attorney general from enforcing AB 2839. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed it into law, along with other bills focusing on AI, back in mid-September. After doing so, he tweeted a screenshot of a story about X owner Elon Musk sharing an AI deepfake video of Vice President Kamala Harris without labeling it as fake. "I just signed a bill to make this illegal in the state of California," he wrote. AB 2839 holds anybody who distributes AI deepfakes accountable, if they feature political candidates and if they're posted within 120 days of an election in the state. Anybody who sees those deepfakes can file a civil action against the person who distributed it, and a judge can order the poster to take the manipulated media down if they don't want to face monetary penalties. After Newsom signed it into law, the video's original poster, X user Christopher Kohls, filed a lawsuit to block it, arguing that the video was satire and hence protected by the First Amendment. Judge Mendez has agreed with Kohls, noting in his decision [PDF] that AB 2839 does not pass strict scrutiny and is not narrowly tailored. He also said that the law's disclosure requirements are unduly burdensome. "Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the internet, could be considered harmful," he wrote. The judge likened YouTube videos, Facebook posts and X tweets to newspaper advertisements and political cartoons and asserted that the First Amendment "protects an individual's right to speak regardless of the new medium these critiques may take." Since this is merely a preliminary injunction, the law may be unblocked in the future, though that might not happen in time for this year's presidential elections.

Judge slams California's AI deepfake law

A federal judge has made it invalid less than two weeks after California Governor Gavin Newsom signed his new AI deepfake law. AB 2839 was meant to shut down the spread of politically skewered deepfakes, including the AI-generated video of Vice President Kamala Harris redistributed by Elon Musk. The court ruling that the law probably violates First Amendment protections is a blow to California's efforts to use AI to combat election misinformation. Last month, AB 2839, signed into law, was meant to hold people responsible for spreading politically misleading deepfakes that could mislead voters. It did not police social media platforms but allowed judges to order people to remove content they had written themselves, generated by artificial intelligence. It followed mounting concerns about the rise of AI-generated political misinformation, a major concern heading into upcoming elections. The viral Kamala Harris deepfake and its implications The lawsuit challenging the law was filed by YouTuber Christopher Kohls, known online as "Mr Reagan," who posted the AI-manipulated video of Kamala Harris. The deepfake was defended by his legal team, which argued the First Amendment as political satire. U.S. District Judge John Mendez agreed and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from being enforced. Mendez said the law was too wide and could easily be abused to crush constitutionally protected speech like satire and parody. "Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the internet, could be considered harmful," Mendez stated. He said the law employed a broad, subjective language that imperiled free speech. While the state has an interest in election integrity, Mendez said, this law, as written, unfairly infringes upon political expression guarded by the First Amendment. Shortly after the Dec. 12 court ruling, Elon Musk, who had mocked the new law after posting the Harris deepfake tweet, tweeted on X (formerly Twitter), 'The court up shuts down California's unconstitutional law invading your freedom of speech.' Yay!" His post has gone viral since, and the online fight over the be/tween has only heated up further over the balance of free speech and regulation of AI-generated content. The preliminary injunction is temporary, and whether that kind of block will last is unclear. The Office of Governor Newsom expressed that the state is confident that it can regulate AI deepfakes in the future. A spokesperson defended the law by saying, 'We're confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes while at the same time ensuring that these free speech rights can continue to exist.' The ruling itself emphasizes the love of motion between new AI technology and time-honored constitutional safeguards, as fakes become ever cleverer and more difficult to differentiate. This legal battle's outcome could shape how states regulate AI-generated content in the run-up to elections.

Judge blocks California's new AI law in case over Kamala Harris deepfake Musk reposted

A federal judge 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 (and 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 its a fake that may confuse voters. The law is unique because it does not go after the platforms AI deepfakes appear on, 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. But the original poster of that AI deepfake - an X user named Christopher Kohls - 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. Read for yourself what Judge Mendez said in his decision: Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the internet, could be considered harmful. For example, AI-generated approximate numbers on voter turnout could be considered false content that reasonably undermines confidence in the outcome of an election under this statute. On the other hand, many "harmful" depictions when shown to a variety of individuals may not ultimately influence electoral prospects or undermine confidence in an election at all. As Plaintiff persuasively points out, AB 2839 "relies on various subjective terms and awkwardly-phrased mens rea," which has the effect of implicating vast amounts of political and constitutionally protected speech... [W]hile 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. Other statutory causes of action such as privacy torts, copyright infringement, or defamation already provide recourse to public figures or private individuals whose reputations may be afflicted by artificially altered depictions peddled by satirists or opportunists on the internet... The record demonstrates that the State of California has a strong interest in preserving election integrity and addressing artificially manipulated content. However, California's interest and the hardship the State faces are minimal when measured against the gravity of First Amendment values at stake and the ongoing constitutional violations that Plaintiff and other similarly situated content creators experience while having their speech chilled. In essence, he says, the law is simply too broad as written, and could result in serious overstepping by state authorities into what speech is permitted or not. Because this is a preliminary injunction, we'll have to wait and see whether this California law is truly blocked for good or just for now, but either way it is unlikely to have much effect on next month's election. AB 2839 is one of 18 new laws relating to AI that Newsom signed in the last month. Nevertheless, it's a big win for Elon Musk's camp of free speech posters on X. In the days following Newsom signing AB 2839 into law, Musk and his usual allies posted a series of AI deepfakes that tested California's new law.

Elon Musk Can't Contain His Joy After California Deepfakes Law Supported By Gavin Newsom Blocked By Court: 'Yay!'

Elon Musk, the high-profile CEO of Tesla Inc. and the owner of X, applauded a court decision to block a California law he deemed as infringing on freedom of speech. What Happened: On Wednesday, Musk took to X to express his relief at the court's decision. The law in question, signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, aimed to curb the use of artificial intelligence in creating misleading political advertisements, specifically deepfakes. The law made it illegal to create and distribute such materials related to elections 120 days before Election Day and 60 days thereafter. The courts had the power to halt the distribution of such materials and impose civil penalties. the enforcement of a California law that aimed to restrict the use of digitally manipulated political "deepfakes" has been blocked by a federal judge. The law had been enacted by Gov.Newsom only a fortnight ago, reported Politico. Senior U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said that the law was a "blunt tool" that hindered humorous expression and unconstitutionally blocked the free exchange of ideas. However, the court made an exception for the "not unduly burdensome" part of the law that would necessitate verbal disclosure of digitally changed content in audio-only recordings. The lawsuit against the state was filed by Chris Kohls, a social media influencer known as "Mr Reagan", who sought to prevent the law's enforcement, citing First Amendment protections for a parody video he had posted. Theodore Frank, Kohls' attorney, expressed satisfaction with the court's decision. On the other hand, Newsom's spokesperson Izzy Gardon expressed confidence that the courts would uphold California's ability to regulate deepfakes, arguing that the law was in line with similar measures passed in other states. See Also: Elon Musk Resumes Slamming FCC's Decision To Deny Starlink $885M Subsidy After FEMA Sends Its Terminals T Why It Matters: This court decision comes in the wake of an escalating feud between Musk and Newsom. The dispute began when Newsom signed the stringent law banning political deepfakes. Musk, known for his active social media presence and use of memes, had fired back at Newsom's threat of legal action, calling it an infringement on his freedom of speech. This latest court decision appears to be a victory for Musk in this ongoing battle. Musk criticized Newsom after the governor signed laws banning political deepfakes, accusing him of trying to outlaw parody. Newsom denied any intent to suppress parodies, clarifying that the laws target deepfakes and election manipulation. Musk dismissed Newsom's legal threats as "amazing" on social media. Check out more of Benzinga's Consumer Tech coverage by following this link. Image via Shutterstock Did You Know? Congress Is Making Huge Investments. Get Tips On What They Bought And Sold Ahead Of The 2024 Election With Our Easy-to-Use Tool This story was generated using Benzinga Neuro and edited by Shivdeep Dhaliwal Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs