Two content moderation bills signed by Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom in September violate the First Amendment and could permanently cripple online political satire, legal experts say Daily -Told the caller.

Newsom signs AB 2655the Protecting Democracies from Deepfake Fraud Act of 2024 on Tuesday. he signed AB 2839the Protecting Democracy from Election Disinformation and Deepfakes Act on Wednesday. The bill would allow Californians to sue creators and platforms for creating or hosting “grossly deceptive” election content on the internet.

“This bill is a complete mess,” said Public Advocacy Director Aaron Tell. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Here's what he said about AB 2655. “It's vague. It's too wide. It forces speech. “This is an unconstitutional, misguided, and ineffective attempt to police online speech,” he told the Caller.

Although both bills target “grossly deceptive” election content, AB 2655 differs from AB 2839 because it goes after social media platforms uniquely. The bill would require platforms like Facebook and X to block “m.”“Materially deceptive content related to California elections” and “labeling certain additional content as inauthentic, fake, or false” during the election period.

As a result, many companies may end up actively restricting content from their platforms for fear of breaking the law.

“Requiring large online platforms, websites, and apps to proactively identify and remove what this bill defines as materially deceptive content would “It violates your First Amendment right to decide whether you want to host or publish such speech,” Teare said. The person who called.

Statement: California's new law targeting “deceptive” political content threatens satire, parody, and other speech protected by the First Amendment.

AB 2839 prohibits the sharing of “deceptively” digitally modified content about candidates for public office for any purpose. That means sharing things like…

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 18, 2024

Although both bills specifically mention deepfakes, a term that refers to fake video content generated by AI, Thea said this broad language applies to content beyond the creation of artificial intelligence. .

One potential impact of the bill, Tell said, is that it could undermine online satire and political comedy. The bill would require creators to clearly state that they are parodying election-related humor that the bill deems “grossly deceptive” before publishing it.

“If you're sharing content or parody, you can share it if you label it as such. But it still has constitutional issues. Because the government generally cannot restrict speech,” Thea told the caller.

“The government couldn't require comedians to say 'I'm about to tell a joke' before telling a joke,” Thea continued. “Requiring to label satire or parody can undermine its effectiveness. Satire or parody is a process that conveys a message or satirizes a person or subject in some kind of subtle way. Often, part of the effect is a moment of temporary confusion where it seems like it's real, but it's not. Every time I click on the Onion article at the top, Imagine seeing big bold letters that say “is satire.”

Other legal experts agreed.

“Vaughn Meader won the Grammy for Record of the Year in the '60s for imitating John F. Kennedy. Rich Little made an entire career out of this. It goes back to when it started in the country, and it's absolutely protected speech,” said director Ted Frank. Hamilton Lincoln Law Institutehe told the caller.

The research institute is file a lawsuit He represents California on behalf of a YouTuber who goes by the nickname “Mr.” It's Reagan. ” After Elon Musk reposted one of the videos in which he edited a Kamala Harris ad using AI, Newsom called out the author.

“I, Kamala Harris, am the Democratic presidential nominee because Joe Biden finally showed his stupidity in the debate,” Regan said in an AI-generated Harris-like voice. Thank you Joe. I was chosen because I am the ultimate diversity hire. I'm a woman and a person of color, so if you criticize what I say, you're both sexist and racist. Remember, I may not know at first about running a country, but if you are a puppet of the deep state, that's a good thing. ”

This is amazing 😂
pic.twitter.com/KpnBKGUUwn

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 26, 2024

In July, Newsom referenced the video in a post on X, writing, “Manipulating audio in 'ads' like this should be illegal.” We're going to sign the bill and see that in the next few weeks. ”

Manipulating voices in “advertisements” like this should be illegal.

We're going to sign the bill and see that in the next few weeks. pic.twitter.com/NuqOETkwTI

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) July 29, 2024

Mr. Newsom argued in his post that the ad should be illegal, but the new law would still allow Mr. Regan to post the video that marked his X post as a “parody.” The bill provides exceptions for certain news outlets and “seriously deceptive content that constitutes satire or parody.”

Mr. Regan said the video “It's clearly a joke. ”

“No one was fooled by it. No one will fall for it. “No one thinks Elon Musk is trying to fool anyone, and no one thinks I'm trying to fool anyone,” he told Caller.

“In my opinion, no, they're not fooling. I mean, it's like satire. It's a joke,” said the Republican, one of eight senators who voted against AB 2655. Councilwoman Diane Dixon told the Caller.

“People are not stupid. Voters receive a lot of information in print or digital format. They know what is honest information, reliable information. They know what is false, misrepresented, disrespectful information. Enough is enough, it's unconstitutional, and they can make those distinctions and they throw it away. Oh, that's not true. And throw it away. I don't think a single voter will absorb it. [Mr. Reagan’s video] And you think, “Oh my god, is that really true?” They don’t give voters enough credit,” she concluded.

But proponents of the bill, including Democratic California Rep. Gail Pellerin, who authored the bill, say widespread access to AI tools makes it far easier for bad actors to interfere in elections. It is claimed that it has become.

“Reaching voters the right information is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and when these deepfakes are spread online to intentionally misinform voters, it can be difficult to ensure the integrity of elections.” “It makes it very difficult to do that,” Pellerin said. said In March.

“Deepfakes are a powerful and dangerous tool for those seeking to wage disinformation campaigns, and they have the potential to wreak havoc on our democracy by attributing false or non-existent statements and actions. ” said Representative Mark Berman, D-Calif.

But many argue that these bills are implicitly intended to target conservatives, and that Newsom seems completely uninterested in the deceptive media coming from the left. .

“He's not making the law in response to a video criticizing Donald Trump,” Regan told the Caller. “He's enacting this law in response to a video that criticized Kamala Harris and could benefit Trump in some way. So, to me, this is a very, very clearly partisan In my opinion, this is actually election interference.”

Ted Frank echoed his sentiments.

“They're not going to go after other lies. They're not going to go after edited clips,” he told the caller. “It’s both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.”

The Harris campaign in particular appears to be engaging in its own form of online manipulation. A shocking Axios report was released in August. exposure A campaign that processes news articles to make them look more positive and uses them as Google campaign ads. (Related: Exclusive: Harris campaign, Google could face lawsuit over fake news headline plan)

“Gavin Newsom pretends he's trying to curb disinformation, but in reality, Democrats are the worst perpetrators of disinformation,” Regan said. “They spread the Russian collusion hoax. They said Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. They said January 6th was an armed riot that left a police officer dead. “He spread so many lies and then signed stupid bills that will have a chilling effect on free speech and put pressure on social media companies to chill free speech,” he continued. . “These are clear violations of the First Amendment and this is my livelihood and how I make money. ”

Experts say the law goes too far and that laws already exist to combat potential crimes.

“Lying in politics is not a new phenomenon, and neither is manipulated media,” Teare said. “Until now, we have adapted by becoming more media literate and less trusting.” There should be no need for immediate regulation beyond the existing legal safeguards.”

Rep. Dixon pointed out that there are already too many laws in place. “There are defamation laws related to fraud. Campaign material. I think it's already covered. I'm not a lawyer, but lawyers say that. So I don't think we need a law. Thousands. Two more unnecessary laws have been added.

Frank agreed, pointing out that it was a “j.”It's so fashionable to complain about artificial intelligence instead of the methods humans have been using for decades. ”

Tell noted that many deepfake videos circulating online have already sparked public outcry. He argued that the solution to deepfakes and manipulated content is more freedom of speech, not less.

“This is a real counter-speech that shows we can identify and debunk falsehoods even when they occur. And as long as counter-speech remains an effective remedy, we shouldn’t.” , the government should not rush headlong into regulations that could cause collateral damage to First Amendment rights,” Thea concluded.