Judge Blocks California’s New AI Law in Case Over Kamala Harris Deepfake
3 min read
Judge Blocks California’s New AI Law in Case Over Kamala Harris Deepfake
Introduction
A Federal judge blocked one of California's new AI laws on Wednesday less than two weeks ago, which is signed by Governor Gavin Newsom.AB2839 after signing this NEWSOM there occurred an online conversation war between them based on the AI deepfake of Vice president Kamala Harris.
Background on California’s AI Law
AB 2839 focuses on the distributors of AI deepfake on social media,the law is very unique as it does not accept the platform which uses this deepfake instead they focus on the creator.It empowers authorities to take necessary actions on the creators.They should be given some penalties.
The Kamala Harris Deepfake Controversy
It is uncertain that the creator was an X platform user Chirstopher Kohis ,he filed a case demanding the judge to block the California news .On wednesday Judge of US john Mendez temporarily blocked California attorney .Here is the judge statement
“Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the internet, could be considered harmful. For example, AI-generated approximate numbers on voter turnout could be considered false content that reasonably undermines confidence in the outcome of an election under this statute. On the other hand, many ‘harmful’ depictions when shown to a variety of individuals may not ultimately influence electoral prospects or undermine confidence in an election at all. As Plaintiff persuasively points out, AB 2839 ‘relies on various subjective terms and awkwardly-phrased mens rea,’ which has the effect of implicating vast amounts of political and constitutionally protected speech…
[W]hile a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape may be justified, this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment. YouTube videos, Facebook posts, and X tweets are the newspaper advertisements and political cartoons of today, and the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak regardless of the new medium these critiques may take. Other statutory causes of action such as privacy torts, copyright infringement, or defamation already provide recourse to public figures or private individuals whose reputations may be afflicted by artificially altered depictions peddled by satirists or opportunists on the internet…
The record demonstrates that the State of California has a strong interest in preserving election integrity and addressing artificially manipulated content. However, California’s interest and the hardship the State faces are minimal when measured against the gravity of First Amendment values at stake and the ongoing constitutional violations that Plaintiff and other similarly situated content creators experience while having their speech chilled.“
Conclusion
The case surrounding California’s AI law and the Kamala Harris deepfake reflects the broader debate over how to balance innovation with the need to protect the public from the harms associated with AI misuse. As AI technology continues to advance, lawmakers and courts will need to grapple with the challenges of crafting regulations that both encourage technological progress and safeguard fundamental rights.
References
Electronic Frontier Foundation (2024). Lawsuit against California’s AI Law. Retrieved from www.eff.org
American Civil Liberties Union (2024). ACLU Statement on California's AI Law and First Amendment Rights. Retrieved from www.aclu.org
More Recent Articles
