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) 65

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.

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

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 @05:52PM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 )

      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 ...

      • LOL! The funny part is you think it's obviously humorous. Um, no, we're talking Trumpers here. They believe all sorts of crap - Pizza Gate, QAnon ravings, humans don't cause climate problems, Trump makes a good president, and so on. But I agree having it be illegal is a bad idea - I'm just saying, it's some great propaganda for the lower half of the bell curve.

    • 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:2, Troll)

        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 ...

      • 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:3)

          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

  • I wonder how fast this situation would change if somebody concocted a deepfake of Elon Musk fellating Donald Trump, while JD Vance hammered away at him from behind, gave him the back-scuttle he never knew he wanted.

    • Is the judge a member of the Log Cabin Republicans?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 )

      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)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      if somebody concocted a deepfake of Elon Musk fellating Donald Trump

      You're sort of new to the Internet, aren't you?

  • Good (Score:2, Interesting)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 )
    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 Eff

    • 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.

  • America overrates its power again (Score:3)

    by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Thursday October 03, 2024 @06:45PM (#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.

  • 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.
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never put off till run-time what you can do at compile-time. -- D. Gries

Close