Judge Imposes Injunction On Anti-Parody Law In California
In a significant legal victory for free speech advocates, a federal court has halted California Governor Gavin Newsom’s attempt to ban AI-generated political content during election seasons. The controversy began when Chris Kohls, also known as “Mr Reagan” on social media, posted a parody campaign ad featuring Vice President Kamala Harris, created with the help of AI technology. Newsom, clearly rattled by the satirical video, swiftly signed a bill that sought to outlaw the production or dissemination of such AI-altered videos during elections.
Critics of the bill, including constitutional scholars and political commentators, quickly called out the law as a clear violation of the First Amendment. This week, a federal court agreed, granting an injunction against the law and delivering a stinging rebuke to Newsom’s overreach. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez did not mince words in his ruling, describing the law as “a blunt tool” that restricts freedom of expression, particularly when it comes to parody and humor.
California’s recent ban on election-related “misinformation,” including political parody, is unconstitutional, a federal court has just ruled. Free speech, not censorship, is the solution to bad info. Wonderful repudiation of totalitarians @GavinNewsom @KamalaHarris & @Tim_Walz pic.twitter.com/YiUmyChqu4
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 2, 2024
Kohls had filed suit on First Amendment grounds, arguing that his parody video, like all satirical content, was protected free speech. Judge Mendez agreed, pointing out that the law, as written, “acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel,” effectively stifling creative and humorous content. The court did uphold a minor part of the law—requiring verbal disclosure in audio-only recordings—but this was hardly a win for the state. The core of the law was found unconstitutional, striking down its most oppressive aspects.
The court’s decision is a resounding victory for free expression, but the controversy doesn’t stop there. Parody website The Babylon Bee filed its own lawsuit, asserting that California’s new deepfake laws would be particularly harmful to outlets that thrive on satire and parody. Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon argued that requiring disclaimers on satirical content would ruin the joke, effectively censoring the very nature of parody. Dillon has publicly condemned the laws as a direct attack on free speech and comedy, and the court’s ruling in the Kohls case could bolster their legal battle as well.
The governor of California just made this parody video illegal in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Would be a shame if it went viral. https://t.co/OCBewC4vOb
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 18, 2024
Newsom’s actions are part of a disturbing trend among Democrats, many of whom have increasingly called for limits on constitutional rights, including the First Amendment. From questioning the legitimacy of the Electoral College to attacking the free speech rights of their political opponents, figures like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi have openly questioned or tried to undermine constitutional principles. This most recent attempt by Newsom to clamp down on parody during elections fits squarely into this pattern of overreach.
The court’s decision to grant an injunction against the law signals that even in California, where progressive policies often go unchecked, there are still limits to how far the government can go in suppressing free speech. As Judge Mendez aptly put it, Kohls is likely to succeed in proving that the law is unconstitutional. This ruling puts a well-deserved halt to Newsom’s overzealous attempt to silence dissent and satire.
Kamala Harris Ad PARODY 5 pic.twitter.com/n0evSEH6GY
— Mr Reagan 🇺🇸 (@MrReaganUSA) September 30, 2024