Dealing a significant blow to California’s attack on free speech through its legislative efforts to regulate AI-generated content, the Eastern District of California has issued a preliminary injunction against Assembly Bill 2839, which aimed to curb the spread of “deepfakes” and other digitally manipulated media during election periods.
The ruling, delivered on October 2, 2024, sides with digital content creator Christopher Kohls, who argued that the law infringes on free speech rights and parody.
We obtained a copy of the order for you here.
Christopher Kohls, known online as “Mr. Reagan,” produces videos that use artificial intelligence to create parodies of political figures, including a controversial piece featuring an altered voice of Vice President Kamala Harris. Kohls filed the lawsuit shortly after AB 2839 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, claiming the legislation unfairly targeted his work as parody and satire.
In the court’s decision, Judge John Mendez emphasized that the law did not pass constitutional muster, stating, “AB 2839 does not pass constitutional scrutiny because the law does not use the least restrictive means available for advancing the State’s interest here.” The judge highlighted alternative approaches like counter-speech that could address concerns about misinformation without restricting free speech.
The ruling criticized AB 2839 for its broad application, which could potentially chill free speech. “While California has a valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process, AB 2839 is unconstitutional because it lacks the narrow tailoring and least restrictive alternative that a content based law requires under strict scrutiny,” the order stated.
The ruling criticized AB 2839 for its broad application, which could potentially chill free speech. “‘Especially as to political speech, counter speech is the tried and true buffer and elixir,’ not speech restriction.”
Defendants in the case, including California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, argued that the law was a necessary tool to protect the integrity of elections from the harms caused by AI-generated false content. However, the court disagreed.
One of the more contentious aspects of AB 2839 was its requirement for disclaimers on satirical or parody content, something that satire site The Babylon Bee highlighted in its lawsuit, which Kohls and other critics argued would undermine the effectiveness and inherent value of such works.
The injunction will hold until a further court decision is made, leaving the future of AB 2839 and similar laws (hopefully) in limbo.
