A U.S. federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction blocking California’s newly enacted law that aimed to restrict the use of AI-generated deepfakes in election-related content, citing concerns over First Amendment rights. The law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 17, required online platforms to remove or label manipulated content within a designated period leading up to elections and shortly thereafter. The ruling emerged from a lawsuit filed by Chris Kohls, a political commentator known as “Mr. Reagan,” who claimed that the law infringed on free speech rights and unjustly penalized creators of satirical and humorous content.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez characterized the law as a “blunt tool” that could unintentionally suppress legitimate expression. He criticized the statute for its broad scope, which he argued would hinder the free exchange of ideas. Mendez noted that even if AI-generated content were subjected to less stringent scrutiny under free speech protections, the law’s requirements—particularly regarding the size and visibility of disclaimers—would likely violate constitutional rights. The judge emphasized that such disclaimers could overwhelm the original message of satire or parody, ultimately stifling creativity.
While the judge upheld one provision of the law requiring audible disclosures for audio-only manipulated content, he stressed that the stringent requirements for visual disclaimers could be deemed unconstitutional. This ruling highlights the ongoing tension between combating election disinformation and safeguarding free speech, particularly as deepfakes become increasingly sophisticated and prevalent in political discourse. Newsom’s office has expressed confidence in the law’s potential to be upheld in future proceedings, arguing that it is crucial for protecting the integrity of elections.
The case reflects broader national discussions surrounding the regulation of AI-generated content, with various states exploring similar legislative measures. As the landscape of digital communication continues to evolve, striking a balance between preventing misinformation and preserving the rights of creators will remain a contentious issue. The outcome of this legal battle could set important precedents for how election-related content is regulated in the future, impacting both free speech and the fight against disinformation in the digital age.
