A federal judge has sided with satirical news site The Babylon Bee and other plaintiffs by striking down a California state bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that prohibited the distribution of deep fake images and videos of politicians.
The legislation, titled AB 2839, was an attempt to address concerns of election integrity, as “disinformation powered by generative AI will pollute our information ecosystems like never before.”
“Those trying to influence campaigns—conspiracy theorists, foreign states, online trolls, and even candidates themselves—are already creating and distributing deepfake images, audio, and video content, in the US and around the world,” says the bill’s fact sheet. “This generative AI-fueled disinformation can affect voter behavior and undermine faith in our elections.”
RELATED: Gavin Newsom’s Trump Parodying ‘Patriot Shop’ Includes ‘Sold Out’ Bible
However, the bill raised concerns about free speech protections. The Babylon Bee, which often uses altered images in satirical articles skewering public figures, joined other content creators in a lawsuit opposing the legislation.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge John Mendez of the Eastern District of California ruled in favor of The Babylon Bee and the other plaintiffs, stating that AB 2829 “discriminates based on content, viewpoint, and speaker and targets constitutionally protected speech.”
In his ruling, Mendez, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, argued that the bill’s “contention that parody and satire are excepted is unpersuasive,” and Mendez believes the specific requirements imposed upon content creators to disclose the use of deep fakes for satirical purposes to be unreasonable.
Mendez wrote, “Put simply, a mandatory disclaimer for parody or satire would kill the joke.”
“Given that AB 2839 captures parody and satire and also enforces an overly burdensome disclaimer requirement, the Court finds that AB 2839 is unconstitutional,” Mendez continued.
RELATED: The Babylon Bee Again Accused of Racism Following Joke About Vivek Ramaswamy
“Novel mediums of speech and even low-brow humor have equal entitlement to First Amendment protection and the principles undergirding the freedom of expression do not waver when technological changes occur,” wrote Mendez. “The satirical videos and posts that Plaintiffs proliferate to critique public officials squarely constitute speech on public issues, which occupies the ‘highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values,’ and is granted special protection.”
.jpg){kind=link}
