The Babylon Bee remains steadfast in its lawsuit against a deepfake law in California. This law mandates social media platforms to block any content that is deemed “deceptive” about politicians. The publication highlights its previous triumph in October, when a ruling was made against another political deepfake law in the state.
The lawsuit could have national free speech implications since the law applies to federal elections, including those in California such as the presidential election.
Earlier this year, California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed his concerns about the manipulation of voices in AI-generated parody videos. He specifically referred to a video shared by entrepreneur Elon Musk featuring Vice President Kamala Harris.
Governor Newsom stated that such manipulations should be illegal and announced that he is working with the Legislature to address this issue through a bill that is currently in the legislative process.
Newsom’s office declined to specify the exact bills it plans to enact to address the issue at hand. However, AB 2655, also known as the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” and its companion bill AB 2839 are potential candidates.
These two bills, along with another bill that has not yet been challenged, aim to require political advertisements featuring significantly altered or AI-generated content to disclose their true nature. Governor Newsom refers to this collection of bills as his “deepfake election content” package.
Governor Newsom emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of elections in a statement about the package. He expressed concerns about the potential misuse of AI to spread disinformation and undermine public trust, particularly in the current politically charged environment.
The measures outlined in the package aim to address this issue by combating the harmful use of deepfakes in political ads and other content. The state is taking proactive steps to promote transparency and build trust in the field of AI.
AB 2839, which had an urgency clause, went into effect right away. The bill aims to prohibit AI-generated content that is “materially deceptive” when it comes to candidates, election officials, and election-related materials.
This ban would be in place for 120 days before and 60 days after elections. Those who violate this ban may face civil lawsuits and damages. However, the bill does allow for parody content, as long as it includes prominent parody disclaimers.
AB 2655, which will go into effect on January 1, mandates that online platforms with over one million users in California must eliminate AI-generated “materially deceptive content” concerning candidates and election officials during the 120 days preceding an election, as well as for election official content during the 60 days following an election.
Platforms will be required to label deceptive content in the six months leading up to election day. However, the law does provide an exemption for content that includes disclosures regarding the use of deceptive content.
A federal court has granted a preliminary injunction against AB 2839, following a lawsuit filed by the creator of the Kamala parody video that was shared by Musk.
The court ruled that the bill functions more like a hammer than a scalpel, as it hampers the expression of humor and unlawfully suppresses the free and open exchange of ideas, which is crucial for democratic discourse in America.
The Bee’s lawsuit against AB 2655 claims that the bill effectively turns social media platforms into informants for the state of California.
Under this bill, these platforms are required to receive reports about user posts containing “materially deceptive content” and take action by either removing or labeling them. The lawsuit argues that this legislation specifically targets political expression.
AB 2655 is applicable to any election where a candidate is on the ballot. This law includes all voter-nominated offices in California, from local to federal elections, including the position of president of the United States. It covers various aspects such as voting machines, voting ballots, and electoral college proceedings within California.
However, it is not clear whether content describing voting machines used in multiple states, including California, and specifically mentioning California, would be considered a violation of this law.