Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts AI Politics

Creator of Kamala Harris Parody Video Sues California Over Election 'Deepfake' Ban (politico.com) 58

Posted by BeauHD from the thou-shalt-not-parody dept.
Longtime Slashdot reader SonicSpike shares a report from Politico: The creator of a video that used artificial intelligence to imitate Kamala Harris is suing the state of California after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed laws restricting the use of digitally altered political "deepfakes," alleging First and 14th Amendment violations. Christopher Kohls, who goes by the name "Mr Reagan" on X, has been at the center of a debate over the use of AI-generated material in elections since he posted the video in July, calling it a parody of a Harris campaign ad. It features AI-generated clips mimicking Harris' voice and saying she's the "ultimate diversity hire." The video was shared by X owner Elon Musk without calling it parody and attracted the ire of Newsom, who vowed to ban such content.

The suit (PDF), filed Tuesday in federal court, seeks permanent injunctions against the laws. One of the laws in question, the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act, specifies that it does not apply to satire or parody content. It requires large online platforms to remove or label deceptive, digitally altered media during certain periods before or after an election. Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement that Kohls had already labeled the post as a parody on X. "Requiring them to use the word 'parody' on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform," Gardon said. "It's unclear why this conservative activist is suing California. This new disclosure law for election misinformation isn't any more onerous than laws already passed in other states, including Alabama."

Creator of Kamala Harris Parody Video Sues California Over Election 'Deepfake' Ban More | Reply

Creator of Kamala Harris Parody Video Sues California Over Election 'Deepfake' Ban

Comments Filter:

  • Good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 )
    That's constitutionally-protected speech. It's irrelevant whatever Mr. Newsom thinks of it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by RedK ( 112790 )
      On Neo-Slashdot, parodying The Right Side of History(tm) is just not allowed. How dare they.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by vux984 ( 928602 )

      That's constitutionally-protected speech.

      That's for the courts.

      There's few limits on what you say in term of political speech, but creating faked content showing others saying things they didn't say might be crossing the line.

      Nobody is confused that Alec Baldwin's "Trump" on SNL is the real deal, so they can say anything. But if they AI deep faked it so you couldn't hear or see that it wasn't trump, and then showed it out of context -- yeah, I don't think that's going to be ok. And i don't think "it was parody" is much of a defense either.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RedK ( 112790 )

        "It was parody" is the ultimate defense actually.

        To this day, people still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. It was actually Tina Fey who said that.

        I'm sure you don't actually think Kamala Harris would call herself a "Deepstate Puppet". You're not one of the crazies that thinks Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house right ?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        There's few limits on what you say in term of political speech, but creating faked content showing others saying things they didn't say might be crossing the line.

        Cough, Campari Interview [boingboing.net], cough. The Supreme Court would like to have a word with you [wikipedia.org] there.

      • And i don't think "it was parody" is much of a defense either.

        Actually, parody is a strong defense if a "reasonable person" would recognize it as parody.

    • It's fairly typical of Gavin "do as I say not as I do"som.

      https://www.newsweek.com/gavin... [newsweek.com]
      https://people.com/politics/ga... [people.com]
      https://calmatters.org/comment... [calmatters.org]

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      People mock Newsom, but between his gun safety push, making California the safest state in the US, without worry about kids starting down the muzzle of an assault weapon, and the fact that California is the most prosperous US state, he is doing a pretty good job in running that state. What laws are made in California eventually get passed everywhere in the US, like CARB emissions. Like breathing without pollution? Thank California and Newsom.

      Newsom got rid of the weapons, and new there are no mass shooti

      • Pollution in California can't be eliminated. Smog was there before and naturally exists because air off the Pacific gets trapped by the mountains. Human raised pollution made it far worse of course, and that part can be corrected.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by deKernel ( 65640 )

        Just going to leave this here....
        https://californiaglobe.com/fr... [californiaglobe.com]

      • People mock Newsom, but between his gun safety push, making California the safest state in the US, without worry about kids starting down the muzzle of an assault weapon, and the fact that California is the most prosperous US state, he is doing a pretty good job in running that state. What laws are made in California eventually get passed everywhere in the US, like CARB emissions. Like breathing without pollution? Thank California and Newsom.

        Newsom got rid of the weapons, and new there are no mass shootings in schools there. Gee whiz, how can that happen? No assault weapons, no dead kids. Amazing, isn't it?

        California assault weapons ban passed in 1989. Slightly predating Newsom. Wikipedia lists 13 school shoots in California since that ban was passed. In many of those the shooter used a semi automatic rifle. Three of them occurred after Newsom become governor.

        Thank Newsom for CARB? Would you believe that Reagan was the CA governor that signed the act that established that agency in 1967? Skimming through the CARB wiki entry, the only item called out since Newsom became governor was the dedication of the

    • "Requiring them to use the word 'parody' on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform," Gardon said.

      What is the argument against that?

      • "Requiring them to use the word 'parody' on the actual video

        What is the argument against that?

        A simpler solution is to require the politicians to put the words "Not Parody" on all their ads.

  • Satire (Score:4, Informative)

    by colonslash ( 544210 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @09:40PM (#64801455)
    It was obviously satire; here's the video [x.com]—judge for yourself.

    • It was obviously satire; here's the video [x.com]—judge for yourself.

      Well yeah, it's nearly 2 friggin' minutes long for one thing. These days, real ads try to get to their point before you can smash that "skip ad" link.

    • Hilarious! But what was fake about it? I don't get it?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by lsllll ( 830002 )

      That was pretty funny. Joe exposed his seinility? Alliance with the Republic of North Korea? I may not know how to run the country, but that's a good thing? Significance, significant, Significance, significant, Significance, significant, Significance, significant? How could anything not think that is satire? I hope California takes a bath on this one.

    • Yes, but there's a spectrum to how obvious something is. This is abused by ad companies to trick some of the dumber customers, and then in court they argue that the misleading ad is legal because a reasonable person would know they're despicable liars. I expect a similar thing will happen with AI-generated videos. I don't think our world is ready for idiots being fully convinced by a fake video that matches their prejudices, while declaring any video that they dislike an obvious fake.

      On a related note, some

    • you say satire... I say risky... Considering the critical thinking levels of most American's... you can't trust that most will know it's satire, and there is likely a good proportion of the populace that will argue with you that it's real, and you saying it's satire is part of the deep state agenda to keep the truth hidden.

      Just look at history and how many articles from The Onion were picked up as legit news by ACTUAL news reporting agencies, let alone the number of random people that took the parody and sa

  • Forgery != Parody (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Outland Traveller ( 12138 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @09:45PM (#64801465)

    Subject says it all. These deepfakes are closer to impersonating a police officer, or forging documents/money than they are to parody and satire.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by RedK ( 112790 )

      No, in this case it's clear parody. I really doubt anyone rational would actually believe Kamala would label herself and I quote here, "A deepstate puppet" who's only a candidate because "Joe Biden exposed his senility at the debate. Thanks Joe".

      But maybe you just aren't someone that's rational.

      • I take it you don't have any Republican friends. Not sure why you got down-modded though. Because you are correct that nobody rational would think this is anything other than parody and I have no idea how a basic statement of fact would deserve negative moderation.

    • No, they are not, show me a deepfake that can reasonably cast doubt on whether it was true. The scary AI isnâ(TM)t quite that good and people are really good at picking up when things are off (uncanny valley)

  • And the last thing this country needs is another fucking Bill Clinton. The guy is literally trying to ban hemp in a state that legalized marijuana. He signed some pretty brutal anti homeless laws to without doing much of anything to actually help the homeless.

    It's painfully obvious he's gearing up for a 2028 presidential run followed by a 2032 run. Assuming Trump loses he won't have much chance in 2028 but then again if Trump wins that won't be another election so it's kind of a moot point. But whatever

  • Just listen to the two of them talk at length about anything on camera. Same mannerisms, same verbal tics, same exaggerations. Apparently the two of them actually hit it off back in '18 when Trump went out there to tour the wildfire damage, and they swore eachother to secrecy about it.

    • The difference is that Trump is a barely literate moron who has not even the tiniest commitment to maintaining a democratic government. I agree with you about similarities, though. Both men are monumentally corrupt, and both have blood on their hands due to their penchant for prioritizing donors over voters.

  • Why it isn't right... (Score:3)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @11:08PM (#64801641)

    You want to do a parody? Use real actors or make sure the deepfake isn't all that deep and not a good fake.

    It's not complicated, and if you have an issue with that it isn't because you're a hero fighting for free speech, it's because you're fighting for the opportunity to deceive the easily led.

    • Use real actors or make sure the deepfake isn't all that deep and not a good fake.

      Having watched it, I think they absolutely nailed the "not good" part. If somebody watches it and truly believes it's a legitimate campaign ad, that says more about the sorry state of our education system than anything else.

    • Dude, if you got tricked into thinking this is real, thatâ(TM)s on you. Obvious Parody is obvious.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Close