Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government

Judge Blocks California's New AI Law In Case Over Kamala Harris Deepfake (techcrunch.com) 128

Posted by BeauHD from the green-light-red-light dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: 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 (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 it's a fake that may confuse voters. The law is unique because it does not go after the platforms on which AI deepfakes appear, 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.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, 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. [...] In essence, he ruled the law is simply too broad as written and could result in serious overstepping by state authorities into what speech is permitted or not.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Blocks California's New AI Law In Case Over Kamala Harris Deepfake More

Judge Blocks California's New AI Law In Case Over Kamala Harris Deepfake

Comments Filter:

  • Kohls' lawyer wrote in a complaint that the deepfake of Kamala Harris is satire that should be protected by the First Amendment.

    I haven't seen the post, is it labeled "satire" or are they just calling it that after the fact -- like people saying they were "just being sarcastic" after being called out on something they said? If it was labeled, or clearly, so then, ya, 1st Amendment. But deepfakes are often (usually?) meant to fool people -- otherwise one wouldn't need to use them. IRL people doing impressions for comedic / satirical purposes aren't trying to be *exactly* like the person they're impersonating to fool others into b

    • Re:Okay, but ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Thursday October 03, 2024 @04:52PM (#64838017)

      There was a lot of discussion just about this two weeks ago on Slashdot [slashdot.org]. Here's the link to the video [x.com]. I'm a Kamala supporter and I wouldn't have believe most of the video. The question is whether one thinks it's satire or misinformation. I guess the having the label like on the Campari ad I referenced to in the previous discussion may have helped it, but it's not necessary if most people's take on something is that it's fake or satire.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Tailhook ( 98486 )

        That is simple minded meme spam that has been commonplace for many years how. It is hard to believe anyone, anywhere imagines something like this is criminal. All I get from this is that US elites are clinically insecure people.

      • Thanks for that, to me that video is clearly a parody it says in the title, I don't know if it always has.

        Kamala Harris Campaign Ad PARODY

        Even if it didn't it just her insulting herself, and saying what a bad job she will do, I don't see how a reasonable person would think it was actually her talking.

        Unless you think she is a complete moron, why would you believe that she would say such things.

        I am concerned by people faking other people using AI, but I think this is not an instance of that.

    • Re:Okay, but ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Thursday October 03, 2024 @04:54PM (#64838027)

      Go see it. It is obviously humorous. You'd have to be completely brain dead to miss the joke.

      The law doesn't require things get labeled or tagged as satire to get legal protection as satire. That's some bizarre modern social media made up thing, not a legal argument for court.

      • The law doesn't require things get labeled or tagged as satire to get legal protection as satire.

        I know, but a label would make it clear and simple and what would be the harm of including it, unless the intention was otherwise.
        Also noting that satire/parody isn't protected if actual malice can be proven ...

        • Why does everything need to have a label though? It is obvious that the video is fake just by watching it.

          If someone is dumb enough to believe it is real, do we really want them voting? For anything?

      • Go see it. It is obviously humorous.

        It's tacky, unfunny, and a bit too long, but assuming it's properly labeled as AI generated cruft, I'd still call it "free speech".

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      It's quite obviously, clearly satire. It's got her saying a whole bunch of stupid shit - much of it things she's literally said, but framed within the context of it being a campaign ad and not just stupid things she's said.

      I suppose the only way you could think it wasn't satire is if you're admitting that she's completely unhinged and stupid and that's the best she can do. Which, I suppose, is up for debate.

      Of course, now I can't find it - it appears to have been memoryholed by the search engines.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by quonset ( 4839537 )

        I suppose the only way you could think it wasn't satire is if you're admitting that she's completely unhinged and stupid and that's the best she can do.

        You're talking about people who say they're all for law and order, yet celebrate the attack on the Capitol and wholeheartedly support a guy who stole from a cancer charity and is a convicted felon. Guess what they think about this video.

        Which, I suppose, is up for debate.

        Again, the same people who believe that are the same ones who blindly ignore the stupi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      Do you think Harris would actually say "I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire" or "I had four years under the tutelage of the ultimate deep state puppet, a wonderful mentor, Joe Biden"? Or is it clear that somebody was impersonating her to criticize her?

      • As I said, I hadn't seen the video, and a link wasn't in the TFS, so I was speaking generally... Someone subsequently posted a link and, ya, it's obviously a joke, and the text in that says "ad parody", though don't know if that was the original tweet ...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Archangel Michael ( 180766 )

        Harris didn't say she was DEI, but Joe Biden clearly said that's why she was hired.

        And she may not claim she is under the wonderful mentor, but she is. Who is running this country, Joe Biden or the Deep State? Be careful as to how you want to answer that question.

        Also remember, nobody voted for Kamala Harris for DNC POTUS candidate. Ever. "Democracy"

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Who is running this country, Joe Biden or the Deep State? Be careful as to how you want to answer that question.

          Ha. The fact that "the Deep State" is an option for who runs the government puts you right out in loony toon country.

        • Also remember, nobody voted for Kamala Harris for DNC POTUS candidate. Ever. "Democracy"

          Okay, so if Trump has a stroke or something and has to drop out, then by your logic the Republicans aren't allowed to run a candidate. Do you not see how stupid that stance is?

          By the way, the Deep State is a couple groups of conservative, billionaire Republicans so all your anti Deep State talk is laughable as it's targeted toward yourself. For one specific example, look into how so many of Texas' politicians are puppets. That one group controlling the strings to force their own agenda is the definition

          • Think about what you just said carefully. I think you just made an important self discovery.

            Biden wasn't suddenly incompetent with a stroke. Remember, he was FULLY capable just days before being shoved out in a soft coup that occurred after his horrible debate performance.

            Deep State is Republican? That's not what you're supposed to say, you're supposed to say it doesn't exist. Or is there a change in narrative?

  • Good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Thursday October 03, 2024 @04:51PM (#64838005)
    Attempts to erode free speech are more concerning than any other attacks on liberty. You can argue until you're blue in the face about all of the horrible things that might happen, but the best defense against those is a populace used to dealing with bullshit and capable of detecting it as opposed to any policy that tries to save them for their own good. That said, I don't think that it was actually intended to survive any judicial review though.

    I think that Newsom only did this to create a Streisand Effect (I'd never even heard of it or seen it prior to the attention brought to it as a result of this legislation) and call attention to the video the kicked off this bill. He obviously wants to be president and Harris winning effectively locks him out of running until 2032. He can't run for another term for governor after he finishes his current term either. His best prospects are her losing in November and this is a rather sneaky way to make people dislike her.

    • How can you hold such negative attitudes about one of those who has selflessly chosen to serve the public by seeking high office? They are all paragons of virtue whose shoes we are not worthy to unlace.

      Actually if Newsom has six years to build his campaign, he will be able to get it far advanced compared to what two years could achieve. Specifically he will be able to accept board positions in many powerful institutions... OTOH Walz will be the person to beat in 2032.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Attempts to erode free speech are more concerning than any other attacks on liberty. You can argue until you're blue in the face about all of the horrible things that might happen, but the best defense against those is a populace used to dealing with bullshit and capable of detecting it as opposed to any policy that tries to save them for their own good. That said, I don't think that it was actually intended to survive any judicial review though.

      I think that Newsom only did this to create a Streisand Effect (I'd never even heard of it or seen it prior to the attention brought to it as a result of this legislation) and call attention to the video the kicked off this bill. He obviously wants to be president and Harris winning effectively locks him out of running until 2032. He can't run for another term for governor after he finishes his current term either. His best prospects are her losing in November and this is a rather sneaky way to make people dislike her.

      The irony is, using the law to protect defamation and slander is what is eroding free speech. At one point you're going to wake up and realise you've lost the ability to tell what is real and what is fake... Hell most of the Fox News crowd already has.

      Also if these were deepfakes against Trump they'd be up in arms about it... Trumpistas already don't like the fact that people are posting videos of what Trump actually says and does that make him look bad (the reason there are so few Trump deepfake "parod

  • America overrates its power again (Score:3)

    by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Thursday October 03, 2024 @05:45PM (#64838163)

    If the video is posted by a foreign resident, there appears to be nothing anyone can do, especially under this law.

  • Said in Nelson Muntz voice.

  • This isn't free speach. (Score:3)

    by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Thursday October 03, 2024 @06:05PM (#64838207)
    I'm sorry, but if you make a video of a real person saying or doing something they never did, it is not free speech, it's straight up fraud and should be illegal. Otherwise, the deep fake sex videos of real people are all perfectly legal.

    • Are you able to find any differences between parody and pornography?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Intent.

        The difference between accidental damage resulting in civil liability, and deliberate criminal damage, is intent. It's no different here.

  • This problem will solve itself.

  • I just looked at the video - https://x.com/MrReaganUSA/stat... [x.com]

    No reasonable person would think it's really from the Harris campaign. It's very obviously fake, meant to make her look stupid.

    Yes, it used AI to make her say stupid things (and to string together real things she said in a way to make her look stupid.).

    But they were SO stupid as to be literally unbelievable. MAD magazine stuff.

    In other words, normal negative campaigning.

    The judge got it right.

  • It's curious how committed Democrats are to fighting misinformation.

    I expect they would want to make sure we overturn fundamental legal cases based on outright, deliberate lies then - say, Roe v Wade? (It was not a rape, as was claimed repeatedly under oath.)

  • The summary said "In essence, he ruled the law is simply too broad as written and could result in serious overstepping by state authorities into what speech is permitted or not", but this is absolutely not what he ruled.

    When a judge rules on a preliminary injunction they specifically do not make a ruling on the core question of the dispute. That's for a trial court to do later. A judge evaluating a preliminary injunction decides two things:

    1. If we assume that all reasonable questions of fact and law go in the plaintiff's favor, could they win? Basically, the judge is evaluating whether it's vaguely possible that the plaintiff could win, not whether the plaintiff is actually right.
    2. If the injunction is not granted, could whatever the harm the plaintiff would suffer be cured later? In the case of speech issues, generally we assume that allowing the plaintiff to speak later doesn't fix the fact that they were barred from speaking now.

    So, this ruling says nothing about whether the law is overly broad and could result in serious overstepping, it only says that such a ruling isn't obviously ridiculous if you give great deference to the plaintiff's position, and that the plaintiff should be allowed to speak until an actual decision is made.

    There is a lot of legal minutiae that journalists are right to gloss over when reporting on legal cases, but the difference between a preliminary injunction and a ruling on the merits is not one. And it's super easy to fix! All the journalist has to do is insert a couple of qualifiers, e.g. "In essence, he ruled that it's possible that the law is too broad as written and if so, could potentially result in serious overstepping...". All it takes is making clear that the judge's ruling only speculates on what a final ruling could be, and is not that final ruling.

  • A Federal judge in California, is not a "California judge."

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close