Creator of Kamala Harris Parody Video Sues California Over Election 'Deepfake' Ban (politico.com) 93
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."
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."
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/716258113/kathy-griffin-life-after-the-trump-severed-head-controversy [npr.org]
Hypocrite says what now?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Was there a law made against Kathy Griffin inciting violence against Donald Trump which led to now 2 people trying to assassinate him ?
No ?
Then there is no hypocrisy in calling out the fact that Democrats are quick to legislate against criticism of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, what she did was already illegal and she did indeed get in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
She faced social and employment problems because of it. There is nothing illegal displaying a dead president in effigy. It is, however, very unwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't these in two separate states? Which can have different laws? You know state rights and all that.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
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:3)
"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)
"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 ?
This is a good and important question: Who has to think that the video is parody? All people, most people, or just "reasonable" people. My opinion is that the answer is closer to all people than "reasonable" people. That is, if there is one potential voter that might believe the video, then it is no longer just parody.
Re: (Score:1)
But that was not a computer generated deep fake, but indeed a parody.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Your second link notes the Hustler parody ad in the case was ...:
>marked as a parody that was "not to be taken seriously".
Are all deep fakes as clearly marked? If not, that case hardly seems relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Althoug the parody marking helped in the libel case against Hustler, SCOTUS didn't write that the decision was because of that. The decision clearly protected parody as a form of speech and its test was that if a reasonable person didn't believe the statements to be true, then it was protected speech. They didn't say "as long as the piece clarifies that it is a parody."
I watched the video. Would some people believe it? I guess so. Would most? I don't think so. She's so egregious in what she says that
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Actually, parody is a strong defense if a "reasonable person" would recognize it as parody."
Agreed. My only issue is that the video probably should have been clearly labeled as a parody inside the video, or that it contains generated (AI) content (if it did). In this particular case, you would have to be pretty stupid to not recognize that video as parody. But why tempt fate?
Re: Good (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of the marine layer [wikipedia.org], which is not the same thing as smog though mixed together they can be virtually indistinguishable.
Re: (Score:2)
Just going to leave this here....
https://californiaglobe.com/fr... [californiaglobe.com]
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
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 their new 402k square foot headquarters.
Re: (Score:3)
What is the argument against that?
Re: (Score:3)
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:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Hilarious! But what was fake about it? I don't get it?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If we had to reduce ourselves to the least common denominator, society as a whole would be doomed. The right way is going up, not bringing things down.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the usual way to deal with the least common denominator is to either get them the help they need, or put them in a box where they can't cause too much damage, and possibly take some sort of precautions against them. For example, a few of the lowest common denominator types (either mentally unstable, or political) killed off enough presidents we decided to give them bodyguards, which seems like a good idea considering the few dozen attempts to kill Obama.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Just look at history and how many articles from The Onion were picked up as legit news
They did a pretty good article about the development of the Gillette 5 blade razor with it's lubricating strip, which are in stores now.
The article:
https://theonion.com/fuck-ever... [theonion.com]
The product:
https://gillette.com/en-us/pro... [gillette.com]
Re: Satire (Score:2)
Sorry, but as someone with extremely coarse hair, I think those 5-blade razors are a godsend. I wouldn't use anything else anymore if given a choice. The 3 blade ones are painful to use by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
you don't find the 5 blade getting jammed up super quick?
i always had issues with anything more than 3...
But while we're at it- nothing beats the Spishak razor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Satire (Score:2)
No, I really like Fusion power, no issues with it.
Thanks for the chuckle, that was a nice link.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link, I was looking for it. My judgement is that I would ban it too. But I am an European and we judge ads differently here compared with the US, so there might be some bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But you are right, those people shouldn't be voting.
But the party wants them to vote and wants them to believe lies. what can be done about it?
In the US, we are citizens, not subjects
Oh, so you're also a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump voters believe all sorts of lies, so they would be the type to fall for it. as intended.
"Trump voters", huh... So, what are they going to do, press harder on the ballot when they go vote for Trump?
This sort of content was not intended for anyone on the fence. It's clearly just circle-jerk material for the MAGA hat crowd.
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:3)
Progressives are concerned they might think Harris really said she is the ultimate diversity hire and deep state puppet if stuff like this is legal. When you look at the shit Animoji and rsilvergun say, I think this might be a credible statement.
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:2)
Oh no Biden did way worse than that. He specifically stated that he would only choose a black female justice nominee. Even if you really wanted to do that, why the hell would you just go and say it? That eliminates all doubt about the justice not being there on account of being the most qualified, rather she's there because she filled in the right diversity checkboxes, and now everybody knows it.
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there were indeed, one unquestionable super candidate (I'd love to see the metric for this), then you'd be right.
But the fact is- that simply isn't so.
So if you've go 2 people that, within reasonable estimation, have equal capacity- choosing someone cased on a diversity criteria does not imply that they were somehow not the most qualified.
Note: I am not saying that is, or isn't the case.
But I will say that Trump has put some of the flat-out stup
Re: Parody and voter intelligence (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Voting is not an intellectual challenge and people who think it is shouldn't be voting.
Free speech is a human right recognized and protected by the first amendment. I don't think the right of free speech includes the right to deceive people whether deliberately or not. I don't think requiring someone to label their parody as parody threatens our liberty. Whether it violates the first amendment is entirely up to the corporate lawyers on the supreme court.
The real threat to liberty is that a small number of
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't tell the difference between that sort of blatant parody video and real video without a #parody tag on it then you really shouldn't be voting.
You missed the point.
The problem is that people are pushing disinformation under the guise of parody. That ad with the fake Kamala quotes for instance, clearly it's anti-Harris. But it's done in the style of an ad playing someone's actual statements against them and it actually does have a bunch of (what I assume are real) clips of her speaking later. People sometimes say dumb things, I could forgive a lot of folks for thinking those quotes were real.
The other side of this coin is, "let's file criminal charges against people who say Trump is Hitler because they're inciting violence". I'm cool with people saying Trump is Hitler. It's dumb but sure whatever, go for it.
No it isn't, those are completely different coins.
The Har
Re: (Score:1)
The fake Kamala ad could never be confused for Kamala because it is at least 2 orders of magnitude more coherent then she is.
Re: (Score:2)
You're either too fucking stupid to understand basic English, or you're just talking shit.
In contrast, have you ever read a transcript of Trump speaking? lol
Come on dude- that fucker is flat out in the bottom quartile in terms of intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
The Harris deepfakes are explicit attempts at deception.
For the record, I'll be voting for Kamala. But what you call "deception", I call "funny".
But there are exceptions to the US 1A and deepfakes designed to mislead voters can certainly qualify.
Not if they are clearly parody, which this would fall under. Most people would not believe she'd call Joe senile. Most people would not believe that she would say we have an alliance with the Republic of North Korea. What's next? People watch the movie The Interview and think it was a documentary?
Re: (Score:2)
However, it was enough to make me open my eyes and imagine a world where more insidious and less-obviously fake ads proliferate out of control, and it looks pretty fucking bad to me.
That being said, I have no fucking idea what one does about it. There are obvious 1st amendment issues, but at the same time, it's obvious these can actually get closer to libel. Feels like it's a cat's-out-of-the-barn thing, and I think society will
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't tell the difference between that sort of blatant parody video and real video without a #parody tag on it then you really shouldn't be voting.
Then some 90% of your population would not be allowed to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
The other side of this coin is, "let's file criminal charges against people who say Trump is Hitler because they're inciting violence". I'm cool with people saying Trump is Hitler. It's dumb but sure whatever, go for it.
Is totally legit to compare any wannabe dictator to the most famous dictator of our times.
Re:Professor Suggon Deeznuts (Score:5, Informative)
Utter the word “cisgender” on Twitter and you’ll get account restrictions. https://www.advocate.com/news/... [advocate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Should doxxing be protected speech?
Re: (Score:3)
followed by an epic response from Elon
I'm starting to believe the real goal behind Neuralink is ultimately to fix whatever has prevented Elon Musk's brain from maturing past the point of a typical 13-year-old's.
Forgery != Parody (Score:5, Insightful)
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:2)
Re: Forgery != Parody (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I got downvoted because I dared say Democrats who think this is forgery arenâ(TM)t rational and this site is infested with them.
If you think this is bad, try to slog through any politically-polarizing article on arstechnica.com.
Re: Forgery != Parody (Score:1)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
He's right though, parody existed long before deepfakes. And if you impersonate a police officer, no matter how obvious your actions make it that you're doing a parody, you'll go to jail. That is, if you have the clothing, ID, and a mask shaped like their face. Which are entirely unnecessary for a parody.
Allow me to bring the Babylon Bee to this party (Score:2)
- California Police Raid Seizes Over 2,000 Memes [babylonbee.com]
- Governor Abbott Declares Texas Sanctuary State For Memers [babylonbee.com]
- BREAKING: The Babylon Bee has obtained this exclusive, official, 100% real Gavin Newsom election ad. [x.com]
Here's the video (Score:2)
https://x.com/andre_nuta/statu... [x.com]
Gavin Newsom is trying to be the next Bill Clinto (Score:1)
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
Newsome is Trump's mirror universe twin (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Why it isn't right... (Score:2)
My governor, Gavin Newsom, is an idiot (Score:2)
This case was effectively heard in 1988. The person being parodied was a public figure, the parody was intentionally hurtful and dishonest, basically the only difference was superfluous - there was no AI back then. The case involved Larry Flynt and his Hustler magazine doing a parody of TV preacher and leader of the organization called "Moral Majority" Jerry Falwell. Falwell originally won his case, overcoming the argument that he was a public figure by showing actual intentional infliction of distress (Lar
Babylon Bee (Score:2)
The Babylon Bee is giving Newsom the finger as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]