Tag: 1st amendment

Judge blocks California deepfakes law that sparked Musk-Newsom row

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a California measure restricting the use of digitally altered political “deepfakes” just two weeks after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law.

The ruling is a blow to a push by the state’s leading Democrats to rein in misleading content on social media ahead of Election Day.

Chris Kohls, known as “Mr Reagan” on X, sued to prevent the state from enforcing the law after posting an AI-generated video of a Harris campaign ad on the social media site. He claimed the video was protected by the First Amendment because it was a parody.

The judge agreed.

“Most of [the law] acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel,” Senior U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez wrote, calling it “a blunt tool hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas.” He carved out an exception for a “not unduly burdensome” portion of the law that requires verbal disclosure of digitally altered content in audio-only recordings.

Theodore Frank, an attorney for Kohls, said in a statement they were “gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis.”

Keep reading

Yes, Tim Walz, You Can Shout ‘Fire’ In A Crowded Theatre

It would be nice if everyone on a presidential ticket understood how the First Amendment works, but unfortunately, that seems to be too much to ask of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. During an exchange about censorship and threats to Democracy—springing, inexplicably, from Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) dodging a question about whether former President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election—Walz made two major free speech fumbles. He claimed there is no First Amendment right to “hate speech” and repeated the myth that you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre.

When Vance pivoted to correctly pointing out that Walz had previously “said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation,” Walz interjected, adding “or threatening, or hate speech.” 

But Walz is wrong. While threats aren’t protected by the First Amendment, “hate speech” most certainly is. Speech that is merely offensive—and not part of an unprotected category like true threats or harassment—has full First Amendment protection. Walz’s mistaken belief that it seems intuitively impossible for Americans to express offensive or hateful ideas reveals a censorious nature, which is extremely troubling for someone seeking the vice presidency. 

“The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly rejected government attempts to prohibit or punish hate speech,” reads a rundown on hate speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment group. “The First Amendment recognizes that the government cannot regulate hate speech without inevitably silencing the dissent and dialogue that democracy requires. Instead, we as citizens possess the power to most effectively answer hateful speech—whether through debate, protest, questioning, laughter, silence, or simply walking away.”

But that wasn’t Walz’s only error. A few seconds later, he said “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.” Again, this is incorrect. It’s a common misconception that shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre isn’t protected by the First Amendment—a myth that originates from a hypothetical used in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ 1919 Supreme Court opinion in Schenk v. United States. 

Keep reading

The Babylon Bee Strikes Back: Lawsuit Takes on California’s Anti-Satire Laws

In a world where politicians crave safe spaces from jokes, California’s latest move to suppress satire might just take the cake. California has decided that it’s time to put an end to all that pesky “political humor.” Yes, the state that brought us Hollywood is now terrified of a few biting punchlines, and naturally, satire site The Babylon Bee and outspoken attorney Kelly Chang Rickert are not having it.

The champion of online irreverence has just slapped the State of California with a lawsuit that reads less like legalese and more like a desperate plea for common sense. They’re arguing, quite reasonably, that California’s new laws—AB 2839 and AB 2655—are a massive overreach, a heavy-handed attempt to quash their First Amendment rights and kill the punchline before it even has a chance to land.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Keep reading

John Kerry vs. The First Amendment

If irony had a throne, John Kerry would be leaning on it, monologuing about democracy’s headaches at this week’s World Economic Forum’s Sustainable Development Impact Meetings. Here, the former Secretary of State and America’s first designated Climate Envoy complained about the modern “crisis” of governance—that awful, inconvenient reality where everyone has a voice. Apparently, too many people are ruining what used to be a good thing.

Kerry, cloistered in the comfort of the Davos bubble, reminded us just how difficult it is to govern when the masses actually get to speak their minds. “It’s really hard to govern today,” Kerry lamented, exuding the charm of someone frustrated that the rabble is talking back. The referees of truth, as he calls them, have been “eviscerated.” You know, those old-school arbiters—the gatekeepers of facts—who made sure the right people got to say the right things, ensuring a comfortable consensus among the elite.

Back then, if something was decided to be true, well, it stayed true.

But now, that pesky First Amendment and the democratization of information are making it all so much harder.

Keep reading

Judges in TikTok Case Seem Ready to Discount First Amendment

A US circuit court panel appears ready to uphold a federal law that would effectively ban the popular social media network TikTok because it’s owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. The legal attacks on the video platform—which FAIR (8/5/20, 5/25/23, 11/13/23, 3/14/24) has written about before—are entering a new phase, in which judicial interpreters of the Constitution are acting as Cold War partisans, threatening to throw out civil liberties in favor of national security alarmism.

Earlier this year, despite widespread protest (Guardian, 3/7/24), President Joe Biden signed legislation forcing TikTok’s owner “to sell it or face a nationwide prohibition in the United States” (NBC, 4/24/24). Advocates for the ban charge that data collection—which is a function of most social media networks—poses a national security threat because of the platform’s Chinese ownership (Axios, 3/15/24).

Given that TikTok is a global platform, with 2 billion users worldwide, demands that ByteDance sell it off are in effect another name for a ban; an analogy would be Beijing allowing Facebook to operate in China only if Meta sold the platform to a non-US company.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom Just Signed an AI-Deepfake Ban That Could Impact Free Speech. This Is the First Lawsuit Against It.

We were waiting for California Governor Gavin Newsom to sign on the dotted line of a new controversial bill that limits speech around AI “deepfake” content that many believe could impact memes. Now that Newsom has signed the bill, the first of several lawsuits against the censorial bills can be filed.

Christopher Kohls, an online content creator known for his political satire, has filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging recent legislation aimed at regulating AI-generated content. The lawsuit seeks to strike down two California laws which Kohls claims infringe upon First Amendment rights.

Read the lawsuit here.

The controversy began when Kohls posted a satirical video parodying Vice President Kamala Harris, which quickly caught the attention of California Governor Gavin Newsom. Following the video’s viral spread, largely due to a share by Elon Musk, Governor Newsom criticized the content, leading to the swift passage of AB 2655, the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” and AB 2839, related to “Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.”

Keep reading

Crazy Nutcase Tim Walz Wants to Ban Free Speech in America if Kamala Wins – Elon Musk Weighs In

Democrats want you silenced!

On Monday twice-failed presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton joined MSNBC’s chief conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow to discuss the 2024 election.

Hillary Clinton immediately launched an attack on President Trump and said he is a danger our country and world just one day after a second assassination attempt against him.

“The press needs to create a consistent narrative about how dangerous Trump is,” Hillary Clinton said.

Hillary Clinton then suggested that those who spread misinformation should be charged with a crime!

Hillary Clinton then suggested jailing Americans for posting “misinformation.”

Clinton was whining about so-called Russian propaganda when she launched an attack on Americans and the First Amendment.

“There were Russians engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016, but I also thing there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda and whether they should be civilly or criminally charged would be something that would be a better deterrent,” Hillary said.

Hillary is not alone.

Minnesota nutcase Tim Walz also wants to ban speech in America.

Keep reading

In an Unprecedented Move, Ohio Is Funding the Construction of Private Religious Schools

The state of Ohio is giving taxpayer money to private, religious schools to help them build new buildings and expand their campuses, which is nearly unprecedented in modern U.S. history.

While many states have recently enacted sweeping school voucher programs that give parents taxpayer money to spend on private school tuition for their kids, Ohio has cut out the middleman. Under a bill passed by its Legislature this summer, the state is now providing millions of dollars in grants directly to religious schools, most of them Catholic, to renovate buildings, build classrooms, improve playgrounds and more.

The goal in providing the grants, according to the measure’s chief architect, Matt Huffman, is to increase the capacity of private schools in part so that they can sooner absorb more voucher students.

“The capacity issue is the next big issue on the horizon” for voucher efforts, Huffman, the Ohio Senate president and a Republican, told the Columbus Dispatch.

Huffman did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.

Following Hurricane Katrina and the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, some federal taxpayer dollars went toward repairing and improving private K-12 schools in multiple states. Churches that operate schools often receive government funding for the social services that they offer; some orthodox Jewish schools in New York have relied on significant financial support from the city, The New York Times has found.

But national experts on education funding emphasized that what Ohio is doing is categorically different.

Keep reading

FLASHBACK: Kamala Harris vows to use DOJ to ARREST people exercising FREE SPEECH

Daily Mail political reporter Charlie Spiering has unearthed a speech of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, vowing to have the Department of Justice(DOJ) move against “misinformation” and “hate” on social media platforms.

During a 2019 speech at the NAACP Fight for Freedom Dinner in Detroit, Michigan, Harris promised that, if given the power, she would hold social media companies responsible for spreading what she termed “misinformation” using the DOJ as a key tool.

The resurfacing of the said video on X, formerly Twitter, came amid a growing number of free speech advocates raising the alarm over what the vice president would do to censor social media platforms if she wins the election.

“We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy,” Harris said, emphasizing the DOJ’s role in enforcing accountability. “We’ll put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice. We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.”

She told technocrats that she would double the Civil Rights Division and direct law enforcement to address the spread of extremist ideologies and misinformation. “If you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don’t police your platforms we are going to hold you accountable as a community,” Harris added.

Keep reading

Free Speech and the Department of Political Justice

In 1966, two famous Russian literary dissidents, Yuli Daniel and Andrei Sinyavsky, were tried and convicted on charges of disseminating propaganda against the Soviet state. The two were authors and humorists who published satire abroad that mocked Soviet leaders for failure to comply with the Soviet Constitution of 1936, which guaranteed the freedom of speech.

Their convictions sparked international outrage. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and then America’s U.N. ambassador, Arthur Goldberg called the charges and the trial “an outrageous attempt to give the form of legality to the suppression of a basic human right.” When a secret transcript of the trial was circulated in the West, it became clear that Daniel and Sinyavsky were convicted of using words and expressing ideas contrary to what Soviet leaders wanted. They were sentenced to five and seven years, respectively, of hard labor in Soviet prison camps.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Political Justice took a page from the Soviets and charged Americans and Russians with disseminating anti-Biden administration propaganda in Russia and here in the U.S. What ever happened to the freedom of speech?

Here is the backstory.

The Framers who crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both under the leadership and the pen of James Madison, were the same generation that revolted violently against King George III and Parliament and won the American Revolution. The revolution was more than just six years of war in the colonies. It was a radical change in the minds of men – elites like Thomas Jefferson and Madison, as well as farmers and laborers generally untutored in political philosophy.

Untutored they may have been, but they knew they wanted to be able to speak their minds, associate and worship as they pleased, defend themselves, and be left alone by the government. The key to all this was the freedom of speech. Speech was then, as it is today, the most essential freedom. The late Harvard Professor Bernard Bailyn read and analyzed all the extant speeches, sermons, lectures, editorials and pamphlets that he could find from the revolutionary period and concluded that in 1776 only about one-third of the colonists favored a violent separation from England. By the war’s end in 1781, around two-thirds welcomed independence.

Keep reading