The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech September 19, 2024 Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update. This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected]. In the News ABC 20: California bans political 'deepfakes' amid changing digital landscape By Matthew Galka, The National Desk .....Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif. [signed] three bills into law banning political deepfakes. The bills also regulate how they’re labeled and mandate social media companies remove a deepfake if they receive a complaint. Free speech advocates say the laws leave the door open to misinterpretations and First Amendment violations. “The drafting is pretty vague, or it goes too far. For example, it permits deepfakes that support a candidate or the candidate wants to run, but if someone wants to poke fun at a candidate it’s not clear the bill would allow that," said Institute for Free Speech President David Keating. Video The Courts Politico: Creator of Kamala Harris parody video sues California over election ‘deepfake’ ban By Lara Korte .....The creator of a video that used artificial intelligence to imitate Kamala Harris is suing the state of California after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed laws restricting the use of digitally altered political “deepfakes,” alleging First and 14th Amendment violations. Christopher Kohls, who goes by the name “Mr Reagan” on X, has been at the center of a debate over the use of AI-generated material in elections since he posted the video in July, calling it a parody of a Harris campaign ad. It features AI-generated clips mimicking Harris’ voice and saying she’s the “ultimate diversity hire.” The video was shared by X owner Elon Musk without calling it parody and attracted the ire of Newsom, who vowed to ban such content. The governor made good on that promise Tuesday by signing laws targeting fraudulent campaign materials. Now, Kohls is suing, arguing the governor is trying to make computer-generated parody illegal and asserting that political satire is a “fundamental First Amendment Right.” The suit, filed Tuesday in federal court, seeks permanent injunctions against the laws. Minnesota Reformer: Federal judge throws out challenge to Minnesota election misinformation law By Christopher Ingraham .....A Trump-appointed federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit seeking to overturn a new Minnesota law making it illegal to knowingly spread false information about voting prior to an election. The suit, filed by the conservative group Minnesota Voters Alliance, argued that the new law is unconstitutional because it could open people up to prosecution for stating sincerely held false beliefs, like “felons do not have the right to vote.” The legislation was a target of conservative ire even before it passed. The group claimed that the law “subjects anyone who expresses controversial views about Minnesota election laws to criminal prosecution, civil litigation from any member of the public, and even prior restraint on their speech.” But U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel was unpersuaded. Brasel noted that the law allows for false statements to be prosecuted only if two conditions are met: the person making them knows they are false, and the statements are made with the intent to impede somebody from voting. Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Blocking Dissenters from School System's "StaffPride" Twitter Account May Have Violated First Amendment By Eugene Volokh .....From yesterday's opinion by Judge Paula Xinis (D. Md.) in Foldi v. Bd. of Ed. for Montgomery County: Just the News: GOP lawyer files amicus brief in AI 'deepfake' robocall case, warns of misinformation weaponization By Natalia Mittelstadt .....A Republican lawyer has filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit over robocalls containing artificial intelligence "deepfakes" sent by a political consultant before the New Hampshire primary election, arguing that the left could claim any contrary political views are “misinformation.” Republican lawyer Dan Backer filed the "friend of the court" brief earlier this month on behalf of telecommunications companies and a political consultant in an AI robocall case because of free speech concerns. If the plaintiffs in the case win, then private actors could sue over political views that the government opposes, he warns. Fox News: 'Trump Train' trial: Defendant says convoy using 'first amendment right' during highway clash By Michael Dorgan .....A woman who is accused of political intimidation for being part of a convoy of former President Donald Trump supporters who surrounded a Biden-Harris campaign bus on a busy Texas interstate in 2020 says the incident was an exercise in free speech and was not intended to impede the progress of the bus… She described the event as an "our team versus your team" political exercise and argued they were not trying to intimidate anyone. The trial kicked off last week, and the seven-person jury heard from plaintiffs, including former Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, who testified that she felt like she was being "taken hostage in a way," and the driver of the bus said he felt "under attack" and feared for his life. Davis and the driver, along with a campaign volunteer and a staffer, are suing six Trump supporters who were part of a convoy made up of dozens of pickup trucks and cars adorned with large Trump flags that converged on the bus days before the 2020 presidential election. Wall Street Journal: TikTok’s Bad Free-Speech Case By The Editorial Board .....On Monday the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in TikTok v. Garland, but the company’s theory of the case didn’t get many likes. “TikTok Inc. is a U.S. entity,” said its lawyer, Andrew Pincus, so “the speech here that’s being banned, we would say, or at the minimum burdened, is the speech of a U.S. speaker.” Its content moderation, he said, “occurs within the United States,” and “the government is not arguing that there’s a sham here.” He presented the law as an “unprecedented” effort to ban the speech of 170 million U.S. users. But Congress didn’t restrict speakers on TikTok. What’s really at issue is Chinese control of the app, and TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company. TikTok is welcome to keep operating and its users to keep posting. The law merely says TikTok cannot do so while remaining what Congress calls a “foreign adversary controlled application.” The D.C. Circuit’s panel grasped this distinction. Judge Douglas Ginsburg wanted to know “why this is any different, from a constitutional point of view, than the statute precluding foreign ownership of a broadcasting license?” Good question. Ed. note: Listen to full oral arguments here. Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Judges' Boycott of Columbia in Clerk Hiring Is Permissible Under Judicial Ethics Rules (II) By Eugene Volokh .....From an order by Eleventh Circuit Judge William Pryor, affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council Aug. 12 but apparently just recently made public (see also this similar Fifth Circuit decision): Congress Broadband Breakfast: Democratic Senators Urge FCC to Pass AI Political Ads Proposal By Jake Neenan .....Democratic senators on Tuesday urged the Federal Communications Commission to pass a disclosure requirement for radio and TV political ads made with artificial intelligence. “While more must be done to address the risks that AI poses to our elections, we urge the FCC to adopt these rules as the 2024 presidential election is less than two months away and, in some states, voters can begin casting ballots as early as this month,” wrote the senators, led by Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M. Racket News: House Committee Rips State Department Over Censorship By Matt Taibbi .....The Global Engagement Center (GEC), a “counter-messaging” operation of the State Department created in Barack Obama’s last year in office, is raked over the coals in a new House investigation. The Committee’s work confirms reports by Racket and the Washington Examiner about taxpayer-funded censorship, but goes beyond to detail a more profound corruption of the agency’s ostensible mission. “The Federal government has funded, developed, and promoted entities that aim to demonetize news and information outlets because of their lawful speech,” the House Committee on Small Business found, adding that GEC “circumvented its strict international mandate” by funding private contractors with “domestic censorship capabilities.” Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update." The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the political rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org. Follow the Institute for Free Speech The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice