September 19th, 2024

Creator of fake Kamala Harris video Musk boosted sues Calif. over deepfake laws

Christopher Kohls, a conservative influencer, is suing California over new deepfake laws he claims violate free speech rights, arguing they hinder satire and impose impractical disclaimer requirements.

Read original articleLink Icon
Creator of fake Kamala Harris video Musk boosted sues Calif. over deepfake laws

Christopher Kohls, a conservative influencer known as "Mr Reagan," has filed a lawsuit against California following the enactment of two laws aimed at regulating AI-generated deepfakes related to elections. Kohls argues that these laws, AB 2655 and AB 2839, infringe on the right to free speech, particularly in the context of satire and parody. His complaint was filed on the same day the laws were signed, claiming they were rushed through in response to a parody video he created of Vice President Kamala Harris, which was shared by Elon Musk. The laws prohibit the creation and distribution of deceptive media intended to harm a candidate's reputation within specific timeframes before elections. Kohls contends that the laws would impose impractical requirements for disclaimers on his videos, potentially undermining their comedic effect. While California officials assert that Kohls' existing parody label should protect him under the law, Kohls maintains that the new regulations could chill humor and satire. The situation has sparked a broader debate about the balance between regulating misinformation and protecting free expression in the digital age.

- Christopher Kohls is suing California over new deepfake laws he claims violate free speech rights.

- The laws were enacted in response to a parody video of Kamala Harris that Kohls created and Musk shared.

- Kohls argues that the laws impose impractical disclaimer requirements that could hinder satire.

- California officials believe existing parody labels provide sufficient protection under the new laws.

- The case highlights ongoing tensions between regulating misinformation and preserving comedic expression.

Related

Elon Musk Shares Manipulated Harris Video, in Seeming Violation of X's Policies

Elon Musk Shares Manipulated Harris Video, in Seeming Violation of X's Policies

Elon Musk shared a manipulated video of Vice President Kamala Harris, raising concerns about misleading content and compliance with X's policies against deceptive media, amid growing worries about deepfake technology's impact on democracy.

Elon Musk posts deepfake of Kamala Harris that violates X policy

Elon Musk posts deepfake of Kamala Harris that violates X policy

Elon Musk shared a deepfake video of Kamala Harris on X, misleadingly portraying her statements. Critics, including politicians, express concern over misinformation, prompting calls for legislation on AI-altered political ads.

CA Governor Newsom and AG Bonta Pretend Court Agreed with Them on Kids Code

CA Governor Newsom and AG Bonta Pretend Court Agreed with Them on Kids Code

California officials Newsom and Bonta faced criticism for misrepresenting a court ruling on the Age Appropriate Design Code, which upheld an injunction due to First Amendment concerns, complicating online content regulation.

Elon Musk Wins a First Amendment Fight, Blocks Bad California Transparency Law

Elon Musk Wins a First Amendment Fight, Blocks Bad California Transparency Law

Elon Musk successfully challenged California's AB 587, a social media transparency law, which the Ninth Circuit Court ruled unconstitutional, citing First Amendment protections and criticizing the law's broad requirements.

California's 5 new AI laws crack down on election deepfakes and actor clones

California's 5 new AI laws crack down on election deepfakes and actor clones

California Governor Gavin Newsom has enacted five laws regulating artificial intelligence, focusing on deepfakes, political ads, and actor protections, while reviewing additional legislation, including the controversial SB 1047.

Link Icon 2 comments
By @ungreased0675 - 7 months
It will be an easy win on first amendment grounds, but that win will happen after the election, which was probably the plan all along.