Judge Blocks California's New AI Law In Case Over Kamala Harris Deepfake (techcrunch.com) 99
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what words of the parent you are even replying to, nor whatever it was you think to be "fascist" there, but you seem to be in favor of allowing people to post deepfakes without labeling them as such – and thus completely oblivious of the fact that the relevant aspect of "deepfakes" is that they can be unidentifiable as fakes, at least they are not generally and not reliably identifiable (even if maybe the one we're talking about here, at least to half-intelligent people, should have bee
Re: Suggestion... start deepfaking Klan Judge Mend (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Suggestion... start deepfaking Klan Judge Men (Score:3)
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech until it becomes defamation
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> See how long it takes Elon to take that video down.
A private property owner taking something down (from property he owns) and the government taking something down are two vastly different things.
If some politician slaps some political crap on your garage door, you're totally within your rights to rip it down.
If the government issues an order that you're not allowed to post something *anywhere*, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.
I'm not sure why people are confused by this.
Re: Suggestion... start deepfaking Klan Judge Men (Score:5, Informative)
The standards for defamation against public figures such as politicians, celebrities, (and yes federal judges) are very high. It's almost impossible to win a defamation suit if you're a public figure.
In the case of this fake campaign ad, it was obviously satire, which adds an additional layer of legal protection. Note that -no one- went after the guy for making or publishing it. Where did the Harris campaign file charges against him or legally demand that it be taken down? No where. The guy is covered 9 ways from Sunday on defamation.
Like Haitians eating pets was? (Score:2, Insightful)
We live in a country where over half of Trump voters thought Hattians in Springfield were really eating pets in mass after the presidential debate. That's right, they believed this tired and very racist go to https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com] for those wanting to demonize immigrants that has never been true.
Given that I don't think you have a leg to stand on claiming something in Harris' own voice is "obviously satire". Don't get me wrong, I'd love to think people were smarter than this but clearly very lar
Re: (Score:2)
https://x.com/MilaLovesJoe/sta... [x.com]
Dont watch this if you are squeamish.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta love anecdotes. Some lady does something insane somewhere and all of a sudden it's somehow likely thousand of immigrants in a community are turning on pets and devouring them.
Re: Like Haitians eating pets was? (Score:2)
Blame Al Gore for inventing the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
other countries require satire to be clearly recognizable as satire
That doesn't mean America should do the same.
America has robust protections for speech, and that's how it should be.
then it is defamation.
Defamation is protected speech. So are libel, slander, and many threats. They may be torts after the fact, but are not a basis for prior restraint [wikipedia.org] or other censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't defamation. Harris is a public figure, and it is exceedingly hard to defame those.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Otherwise you're on that slippery slope.
Freedom is sometimes ugly, but it's much better than Totalitarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea behind such cases is it is not the speech that is illegal, but making it appear that someone else is saying it should be.
Ventriloquists and people who share pictures accompanied by inspirational quotes hardest hit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, mod censor troll moderators down.
But I do think we're fundamentally screwed. Truth is too expensive. Fakes and lies are too cheap and trying to debunk the lies is often even more expensive than finding and verifying the truth in the first place.
Any system that depends on accurate information is probably doomed now. Take your pick. Democracy? The stock market? Scientific publishing?
Okay, but ... (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Except this is in her voice and isn't just text at the bottom of a picture.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Can you truly, with a straight face, tell me the no democrat has ever believed something that isn't obviously outlandish bullshit?
Of course you can't, that is the problem with making arguments that becomes true if even a single case exists, it makes that argument meaningless. We should be talking about people in general.
Re: (Score:2)
The Trumpers are in on the joke. It's the Dems who are incensed.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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:3)
If they are right and that dumb they aren't going to vote for her anyway so what is the problem? Cause smart people vote like you, right? 50% of people are below medium intelligence, the question is how do you, or me for that matter, know you are not one of them?
How about we stop calling people who don't share your views stupid, maybe even listen to them, and perhaps most of us did that we might start listening to one another again.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! And that's why true Blue California was the state to try and ban this. Oh. Wait.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music" -Friedrich Nietzsche
Re: (Score:2)
Schizophrenics have all sorts of audio hallucinations, doesnt mean they have any clue as to what reality is.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the judge a member of the Log Cabin Republicans?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Shit like that gets posted all the time. Nothing happens. Why do you think anything would happen?
People threaten to kill the president online and sometimes, not always, they get an FBI visit to discuss it but nothing more than that ever happens. And that shit is actually criminal. Someone makes a homoerotic meme and you think the law is suddenly going to change and we'll end the 1A?
Ok.
Re: (Score:2)
if somebody concocted a deepfake of Elon Musk fellating Donald Trump
You're sort of new to the Internet, aren't you?
Re: Incoming!!! (Score:2)
Completely ridiculous. JD Vance would have to be the bottom for anyone to be fooled by that.
Good (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Such cyncism (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:1)
On X, Deep Fakes of Kamala Harris are Free Speech, but posting facts about JD Vance gets you banned.
Are you one of those people who spreads the "sex with a couch" meme?
Re: (Score:2)
On X, Deep Fakes of Kamala Harris are Free Speech, but posting facts about JD Vance gets you banned.
Are you one of those people who spreads the "sex with a couch" meme?
Do you think that's the only factual thing that's been posted about Vance?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which do you think should be allowed on X: doxxing, posting SSN's, or posting hacked materials?
Or all three?
Genuinely curious. Should X have the same rules as Breach or Kiwi?
Re: (Score:2)
As best I can tell, according to California legislature, any freedom is too much.
America overrates its power again (Score:3)
If the video is posted by a foreign resident, there appears to be nothing anyone can do, especially under this law.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha (Score:2)
Said in Nelson Muntz voice.
This isn't free speach. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you able to find any differences between parody and pornography?
Re: (Score:2)
Intent.
The difference between accidental damage resulting in civil liability, and deliberate criminal damage, is intent. It's no different here.
At the rate Musky is driving x into the ground (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain the rate metrics you have.
Re: At the rate Musky is driving x into the ground (Score:1)
No reasonable person would think it was real (Score:2)
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.
Lots of similar deepfake political ads (Score:5, Informative)
X user Mr. Reagan posts a lot of these.
Kamala Ad PARODY 1 [x.com]
Kamala Ad PARODY 2 [x.com]
Kamala's New Ad is LIT Parody [x.com]
Time Walz Phone Call PARODY [x.com]
Barack Obama Endorses Kamala PARODY [x.com]
Kamala Ad PARODY 5 [x.com]
Gavin Newsom PARODY [x.com]
misinformation (Score:2)
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.)
Bad summary (and probably article) (Score:2)
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
california judge (Score:2)
A Federal judge in California, is not a "California judge."