Skip to content

California banned campaign deepfakes four years ago. They’re still banned today.

Published on 48 Comments on California banned campaign deepfakes four years ago. They’re still banned today.

Elon Musk and his Twitter army are on the warpath tonight:

This is all over the conservo-sphere: California wants to ban memes!

But this whole thing is bizarre. On Tuesday Gov. Gavin Newsom signed some laws regulating deepfakes. One of them is election related and goes into effect immediately.

But California already has a law against deepfakes in political campaigns. We've had it since 2020. The new law, if I'm reading it correctly, does two things. First, existing law takes effect only during the 60 days before an election. The new law is in effect 120 days before and 60 days after an election. Second, the old law allowed a candidate to sue for removal of a deepfake. The new law allows almost anyone to sue.

Both old and new laws apply only to "materially deceptive content" that's distributed with malice. But content is exempt if it's clearly marked as either parody or manipulated.

So . . . I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Campaign deepfakes have been illegal in California for four years. They're still illegal, and the new law has only slightly sharper teeth. What am I missing here?

48 thoughts on “California banned campaign deepfakes four years ago. They’re still banned today.”

  1. kenalovell

    What are you missing? The MAGA Republican determination to win the election campaign using a torrent of deliberate lies and disinformation.

  2. MF

    Obviously no one noticed the original law.

    The main issue here is that this law is obviously unconstitutional. Lies are protected by the First Amendment with minor exceptions such as fraud or attempting to stop people from voting by giving them inaccurate information about how / where / when to vote.

    For example, this video is 100% legal and protected by the First Amendment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgVeAz8q458&ab_channel=TIMESNOW

    This is just one more example of how Democrats have abandoned their previous support for the First Amendment as the proliferation of peer to peer media has eliminated the gate keeping role of liberal mass media members.

      1. bbleh

        Nor is, for example, the use of a public figure's name or image to endorse or advocate for, say, a product or candidate without that person's approval. Thus "cease and desist" letters, defamation lawsuits, etc.

        MAGAts love overly simplistic and facially absurd interpretations of laws and the Constitution ...

        1. MF

          Nope. But a deep fake of Harris doing the nasty with Willie Brown would be protected by the First Amendment.

          If the California law restricted itself to commercial advertising it would probably pass Constitutional muster. it does not.

        1. jdubs

          I said try harder.

          I didnt mean to imply that you should try to sound even more uninformed.

          Sometimes my english isnt great. Apologies!

    2. Solar

      You should have given your sage advice to Trump, Alex Jones, Rudy Giuliani, Kari Lake, and Fox News. You could have saved them the about $2 Billion in damages and penalties they lost in the courts for their lying about others.

      1. MF

        How long is it since a significant number of newspapers in major metropolitan areas endorsed the Republican candidate in a presidential election?

      1. Coby Beck

        And since MF lives in Saudi Arabia where they execute sexual deviants like feminists, MF, as a pedophile, may get what he deserves after all?

    6. Crissa

      Dude, there has never been a case where a court approved direct, knowingly lying, or continuing to lie when it was pointed out when the target was an identifiable person or organization.

      We generally call this "libel law".

      1. MF

        Actually, if it is not defamation or slander or if no one could believe it is true then it is constitutionally protected.

        For example, I can say that Harris and Trump are both Martians in full page ads in every major newspaper and keep doing it as long as those newspapers will print my adds and neither candidate will have any recourse to stop me.

  3. D_Ohrk_E1

    Musk is an attention whore attempting to distract away from the Orange Beast and his race-baiting, which is a redirection away from the idiocratic leader's fascist leanings.

  4. jdubs

    The rubes always need a new outrage of the moment. Its hard to predict what exactly will take off, so you have to flood the zone. All the time.

  5. jte21

    Speaking of MAGA in California, what's going on with the Schiff/Garvey Senate race? I peruse the LA Times most days of the week and haven't seen anything about it in a while. Has Garvey just sort of given up already?

  6. todwest

    "I still cannot conceive of the fascist movement being intentionally deceptive. No, I must assume they are acting in good faith and are merely confused. I will gladly correct them."

  7. Josef

    "You're not going to believe this..." You're right, we don't. Xhit has becone a cess pool of hate and ignorance. Leon Skum has to keep those advertising dollars rolling in. Nothing sells more than hate and ignorance.

    1. Coby Beck

      Since his Twitter take over he has bled around 75% of advertising revenue. Sadly, capitalist cynicism is not a viable defense. He simply drinks his own kool-aid.

  9. RiChard

    I can't disagree with giving "almost anyone" standing to sue. In the last days before the election, diverting a campaign's money and time to an AI lawsuit is a waste. If someone else wants to shoulder the load and free up the candidate for better things, good on ya.

      2. Coby Beck

        I don't mean to imply the current SCOTUS cares about or shows any judicial consistency or integrity, but they did allow Texas' bounty hunter anti-abortion law to stand.

    2. Crissa

      Also, any one person has literally limited time. There's no way for anyone to be everywhere and able to respond to any thing any time they're being faked.

  10. FrankM

    Kevin, I'm mystified why you keep giving these clowns (Musk, Stephens, et al) the assumption of good faith arguments. Have you been on another planet the last few decades?

  11. drickard1967

    "I'm not sure what the fuss is about. "
    The fuss is about slandering liberals/Democrats, keeping the MAGA faithful inflamed.

  12. Jasper_in_Boston

    What am I missing here?

    You're missing the fact that the general election is less than seven weeks away.

    I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

    The "fuss" is about energizing the MAGA base and/or distracting them from issues like healthcare, or the booming stockmarket. Similar to the Springfield Haitian BS. It's all these criminals have: made to order outrage.

Comments are closed.