Overview:
A federal court recently blocked California Governor Gavin Newsom’s attempt to ban AI-generated campaign videos, siding with social media personality Chris Kohls, known as “Mr. Reagan.” The court ruled the law, which aimed to limit AI-created political content, violated the First Amendment, marking a victory for free speech and satirists.
Why It Matters:
This ruling defends Americans’ constitutional rights to free speech and ensures that political satire remains a protected form of expression, preventing government overreach in controlling content.
Who It Impacts:
The ruling directly impacts content creators, satirists, and political commentators, as well as every American concerned with preserving free speech protections.
In a major victory for free speech, a federal court has blocked a California law that sought to ban the creation and distribution of AI-generated campaign videos during election seasons. The law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, was swiftly challenged by social media personality Chris Kohls, known by his online alias “Mr. Reagan.” Kohls sued the state, claiming the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, particularly targeting satire and political parody.
Kohls filed the lawsuit after releasing a parody video featuring an AI-generated campaign ad for Vice President Kamala Harris. The video, which was meant as a humorous critique, quickly attracted attention, not only for its content but also for triggering Newsom to sign the restrictive law. Kohls, alongside several legal experts and pundits, argued that the legislation was an overreach and threatened to stifle free expression during critical election periods.
California's recent ban on election-related "misinformation," including political parody, is unconstitutional, a federal court has just ruled. Free speech, not censorship, is the solution to bad info. Wonderful repudiation of totalitarians @GavinNewsom @KamalaHarris & @Tim_Walz pic.twitter.com/YiUmyChqu4
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 2, 2024
Senior U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez sided with Kohls, issuing an injunction against the law. In his ruling, Mendez criticized the law for being overly broad, stating that it “acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel” by failing to differentiate between harmful deepfakes and humorous content. Mendez carved out a small exception for audio-only content, requiring a verbal disclaimer for AI-altered material, but otherwise blocked the state from enforcing the law.
The case drew additional attention when satire website The Babylon Bee also filed a lawsuit, claiming that the law would effectively ban their satirical content. Seth Dillon, CEO of The Babylon Bee, argued that requiring disclaimers for parody content would “kill the joke” and destroy the very nature of satire. “This is about more than comedy,” Dillon said in an interview. “It’s about protecting the right to speak truth to power through humor.”
Judge Mendez’s decision is a temporary reprieve for content creators, but it highlights a broader trend of government overreach. Many critics point out that California’s law represents a growing effort by the left to control political speech and curtail free expression under the guise of regulating technology. Pundits have raised concerns that this is part of a larger pattern among prominent Democrats who have repeatedly questioned or attacked foundational elements of the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment.
For now, at least, free speech advocates can celebrate a victory, as Kohls’ parody video remains protected under the First Amendment. However, the broader battle over the regulation of political content, particularly in the age of AI, is far from over. The ruling sends a strong message that any attempts to suppress political discourse, especially satire, will face serious legal challenges.
