The Left has taken a more aggressive stance against the First Amendment in recent years, pushing to restrict what they deem as harmful or misleading speech.
This from thepatriotjournal.com.
From college campuses to social media platforms, many on the Left have advocated for curbing free expression in the name of combating disinformation.
Critics argue these efforts have gone too far, effectively undermining one of the core principles of American democracy—free speech. The trend shows no signs of slowing, and new laws aimed at curbing speech seem to pop up recurringly.
One of the most striking examples of this battle against free expression came out of California, where a recently passed law sought to crack down on AI-generated content. Governor Gavin Newsom, reacting to an AI-generated parody targeting Comrade Kamala, pushed through legislation aimed at censoring “materially deceptive” AI content.
The move was framed as a defense against disinformation, but it quickly came under fire for being a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
From The Post Millennial:
A California law signed by Governor Gavin Newsom late last month that was in direct reaction to his disgust at AI parodies of his friend [Comrade Kamala] has been struck down after US District Judge John A. Mendez ruled it was in violation of the First Amendment. The Plaintiff in the case has been granted a preliminary injunction, stopping the law from going into effect while the case goes forward.
The law was meant to prohibit AI or deepfakes deemed “materially deceptive” concerning elections, but Judge Mendez found it to be an overly broad and unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Mendez’s ruling hit the nail on the head, criticizing the law for using a “hammer instead of a scalpel.” It did not just aim at genuinely harmful content; it broadly targeted any AI-generated political speech, including satire and parody.
The ruling comes after YouTuber Christopher Kohls, who shared the parody video of Harris, sued the state for violating his constitutional rights. The court agreed, with Mendez noting that Kohls was likely to win the case on First Amendment grounds.
The law was born out of a viral moment. Over the summer, an AI-generated fake campaign ad for the Harris-Walz ticket exploded on social media. In the parody, a fake Kamala Harris boasted about being the first DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) candidate on a presidential ticket. The video was obviously satirical, but it struck a nerve with Newsom, who called it manipulative and vowed to make such content illegal.
Enter Elon Musk. After Newsom’s public outcry, Musk—never one to shy away from controversy—shared the parody video, adding fuel to the fire. Musk’s sharing of the video brought the issue to a wider audience, amassing over 100 million views on X.
Newsom’s response? Sign a bill that would effectively ban such content, even if it was clearly satirical.
Judge Mendez didn’t mince words in his ruling. He declared the law failed to pass constitutional muster, especially since:
[I]t didn’t use the least restrictive means to achieve its goal.
Instead of outright censorship, Mendez suggested that the state could combat bad speech with more speech—a longstanding principle of free expression in the United States. He emphasized that political speech, especially when critical of the government, must remain protected.
The ruling also pointed out that the law did not require actual harm to be proven before AI-generated content could be punished. This, the judge argued, was a fundamental flaw.
The law sought to restrict speech based on the potential for harm, which is far too broad a standard when it comes to free expression. As Mendez eloquently put it:
Counter speech is the tried and true
buffer and elixir, not speech restriction.
Elon Musk, ever the champion of free speech, had the last word—at least for now. After the court’s decision, Musk took to X once more to celebrate the ruling.
He posted, in classic Musk fashion:
California’s unconstitutional law infringing on your freedom of speech has been blocked by the court. Yay!
It was a victory not just for Musk but for anyone concerned about the creeping tide of censorship, especially in the digital age where AI-generated content is becoming more common.
Journalist Michael Shellenberger also weighed in, applauding the ruling for standing up to censorship under the guise of regulating technology. Shellenberger highlighted a key part of the ruling, which stated:
[T]he core principles of the First Amendment
don’t change just because technology evolves.
Whether it’s a pamphlet from the 18th century or a deepfake from the 21st, free speech must remain protected.
