Tag: lawsuits

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

The Intercept Sues to Release 911 Recordings From Trump Rally Shooting

The Intercept filed a lawsuit on Monday to force county officials in Pennsylvania to release 911 recordings from the July rally in which former President Donald Trump was injured in an apparent assassination attempt. Despite the public’s “compelling” interest in these materials, Butler County refuses to hand them over without a court order.

Almost two months after the July 13 shooting, questions remain about the timeline of law enforcement officials’ response and coordination, including when rally attendees first alerted them to the gunman climbing onto a nearby roof. Police from Butler Township released body camera footage showing their frantic real-time response from multiple perspectives.

But Butler County insists that releasing the 911 calls might jeopardize investigations into what happened.

“Simply put, there is no accountability without public access,” said Melissa Bevan Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association. “The county should reverse its denial so that the nation has a better understanding of what happened and can work to prevent similar attacks in the future.” 

Keep reading

Florida Attorney General Sues Biden-Harris Administration Over Release of Criminal Illegal Aliens into US Communities

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the Biden administration, demanding accountability for its failure to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The request, which was originally submitted by the Attorney General’s office back in March, seeks documentation regarding the Biden regime’s policies that allow dangerous criminals to be released into U.S. communities straight out of prison.

Attorney General Moody expressed her frustration with Biden’s regime, stating, “In addition to flat out refusing to secure the border, reports indicate that President Biden and failed Border Czar Kamala Harris refuse to deport dangerous illegal immigrant prisoners once they are released from prison…” She continued, “This administration has made it clear they will not turn over documents showing this dangerous and unlawful scheme in a timely manner. Now, American cities are suffering in a very public way. I will not stand idly by and allow this dereliction of duty, that is why I filed suit today.”

In the original FOIA request, Moody asserted that the Biden administration is fully aware of prisoners crossing into the U.S. through the open border and is actively releasing criminal illegal aliens into the country’s interior. The Attorney General even pointed out the disturbing reality facing Americans, referencing a recent incident where armed gang members overran an apartment complex in Colorado, using it as a base for illicit activities.

“Recently, Americans watched in horror as they witnessed the consequences of this Biden-Harris policy, as well as other open borders policies when armed gang members took over an apartment complex in Colorado and used it as a base for criminal activity. That incident represents merely one example of the destruction and chaos wrought by this Administration’s policy choices.”

Keep reading

NO FAKES – A Dream for Lawyers, a Nightmare for Everyone Else

Performers and ordinary humans are increasingly concerned that they may be replaced or defamed by AI-generated imitations. We’re seeing a host of bills designed to address that concern – but every one just generates new problems. Case in point: the NO FAKES Act. We flagged numerous flaws in a “discussion draft” back in April, to no avail: the final text has been released, and it’s even worse.  

Under NO FAKES, any human person has the right to sue anyone who has either made, or made available, their “digital replica.” A replica is broadly defined as “a newly-created, computer generated, electronic representation of the image, voice or visual likeness” of a person. The right applies to the person themselves; anyone who has a license to use their image, voice, or likeness; and their heirs for up to 70 years after the person dies. Because it is a federal intellectual property right, Section 230 protections – a crucial liability shield for platforms and anyone else that hosts or shares user-generated content—will not apply. And that legal risk begins the moment a person gets a notice that the content is unlawful, even if they didn’t create the replica and have no way to confirm whether or not it was authorized, or have any way to verify the claim. NO FAKES thereby creates a classic “hecklers’ veto”: anyone can use a specious accusation to get speech they don’t like taken down.  

The bill proposes a variety of exclusions for news, satire, biopics, criticism, etc. to limit the impact on free expression, but their application is uncertain at best. For example, there’s an exemption for use of a replica for a “bona fide” news broadcast, provided that the replica is “materially relevant” to the subject of the broadcast. Will citizen journalism qualify as “bona fide”? And who decides whether the replica is “materially relevant”?  

These are just some of the many open questions, all of which will lead to full employment for lawyers, but likely no one else, particularly not those whose livelihood depends on the freedom to create journalism or art about famous people. 

Keep reading

HORROR: Military Parents Lose Custody of 16-Year-Old Autistic Son After Refusing to Let Him Transition to a Girl – Son is Currently in Foster Care Living with ‘Non-Gendered’ Chaplain Named “Lavender”

A black military family residing in Maryland is suing a DC hospital after they lost custody of their 16-year-old autistic son for refusing to let him ‘transition’ to a girl.

According to The Daily Mail, the parents hospitalized their teen son for self-harming after he broke up with a girlfriend back in 2021.

While the minor teen was hospitalized, the staff at Children’s National Hospital told the parents their son wanted to become a girl and his preferred pronouns are she/her.

The parents said their son never expressed the desire to become a girl until he spent time in the hospital. They argued in their lawsuit that their son is “impressionable” because he is autistic.

They alleged the hospital staff started a “full-on campaign to transgender this child” and forced him to write letters to friends informing them he is no longer a male.

The teen is now 19-years-old and in foster care living with a ‘non-gendered’ chaplain named Lavender Kelley.

Keep reading

North Carolina Threatened To Prosecute Her for Taking a ‘Ballot Selfie.’ Now, She’s Suing.

There’s a pretty good chance you’ve taken a “ballot selfie”—a picture of or with your completed ballot. Around one in 10 Americans say they have, and pictures of filled-in ballots are common on social media during election season. However, taking a picture of your ballot is a crime in 14 states, leading to possible fines and jail time.

A North Carolina woman is challenging her state’s ban on ballot selfies, arguing that she has a First Amendment right to take a picture of her own ballot—and to post it online. 

“Ballot selfie bans turn innocent Americans into criminals for nothing more than showing their excitement about how they voted, or even just showing that they voted,” said Jeff Zeman, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the First Amendment group that filed the suit. “That’s core political speech protected by the First Amendment.”

According to the lawsuit, North Carolina resident Susan Hogarth took a photo this March with her completed primary ballot. She posted the photo to X, with the caption: “Laws against #ballotselfie are bullshit.”

Just a week after the primary election, Hogarth received a letter from the North Carolina State Board of Elections threatening prosecution for her post, demanding that she take down the post or face legal action. As of the filing of the suit, Hogarth’s post had received less than 3,000 views—hardly a viral post. Hogarth has refused to take down the post and says that she will continue to take ballot selfies.

“Between March 2016 and March 2024, the State Board investigated at least 50 reports of voters photographing completed ballots from primary and general elections,” reads FIRE’s suit. “During election cycles from November 2018 through March 2024, officials from at least eight different North Carolina county boards sent reports of voters photographing completed ballots to the State Board.”

The lawsuit argues that these investigations—and the multiple North Carolina laws justifying them—obviously violate the First Amendment.

Keep reading

Trans advocate Roxy Tickle wins discrimination case after being banned from women-only app Giggle in Australian court

An Australian male has won his case against the female founder of women’s only app Giggle for Girls after she said the male, who identifies as a woman, was not permitted on the app due to his being male. A judge has awarded the male, who goes by Roxanne Tickle, $10,000 in compensation for being kicked off the platform. Giggle founder Sall Grover has vowed to continue fighting, and the decision can be appealed. 

She wasn’t surprised by the ruling, writing “Unfortunately, we got the judgement we anticipated. The fight for women’s rights continues.”

The court determined that Tickle, in the case called Tickle v. Giggle, has been “indirectly discriminated against” in being disallowed from accessing Giggle. “The indirect discrimination cases succeeded because Ms Tickle was excluded from the use of the Giggle app because she did not look sufficiently female according to the respondents,” said Justice Robert Bromwich. 

He said that Giggle could not be an app for women only and had to accept men who identify as women, thought he attempted to differentiate discrimination by gender identity from discrimination based on sex. Tickle had sought $20,000, but Bromwich only awarded half of that, $10,000. Tickle had been blocked from the app in 2021 despite his birth certificate having been changed to reflect his gender identity. Tickle claimed that “Up until this instance, everybody has treated me as a woman.”

Tickle had sought the excessive damages after claiming that Grover had been, essentially, too vocal about the case, and Tickle, on Twitter, later renamed X. In a clip posted to X, Tickle can be seen explaining the transformation from presenting as a man to presenting as a woman. On the Australian show Insight, Tickle was asked “Roxy, you’re a transgender woman from regional New South Wales. You played hockey for 10 years when you were 16-years-old, but you stopped when you 26. Why?”

Keep reading

Judge Rules RFK Jr. Can Sue Biden Admin Over Censorship After Supreme Court Rejects Challenge From States

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can continue to pursue his lawsuit against the Biden administration over censorship at the direction of the government.

The decision comes after a June ruling by the Supreme Court, which established who can sue the Biden administration for violating their First Amendment rights when government officials pressured social media companies to suppress free speech did not have standing to sue.

According to District Court Judge Terry Doughty, Kennedy meets the standard set by the Supreme Court because there is “ample evidence” to show he was censored at the direction of government actors, and is at “substantial risk” that the censorship will continue, the Daily Caller reports.

Under the Supreme Court’s Murthy v. Missouri ruling, Doughty explained that “a court must make specific findings that a particular defendant pressured a particular platform to censor a particular topic before the platform suppressed a particular plaintiff’s speech on that topic.”

Kennedy was named by one of the “Disinformation Dozen” – and was specifically targeted by the government over what they alleged was COVID-19 misinformation, Doughty noted in his ruling – adding that there is “not much dispute” that Kennedy, and his organization – Children’s Health Defense, were “were specifically targeted by the White House, the Office of Surgeon General, and CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency].”

Keep reading

Tulsi Gabbard Suing Biden/Harris Admin For Placing Her On Terrorist Watch List

Former Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard is taking legal action against the Biden/Harris Administration after she discovered that she has essentially been placed on a terrorist watch list.

Gabbard, a military veteran, had it brought to her attention by Federal Air Marshal whistleblowers that she has been marked under the Quiet Skies program, a TSA scheme that seeks to identify travellers who may pose a risk to aviation security.

Those on this watchlist are not banned from flying, but are subject to enhanced searches and surveillance at airports, including having armed Air Marshals accompanying them on flights.

The whistleblowers have informed Gabbard that she is being monitored by two Explosive Detection Canine Teams, one Transportation Security Specialist specializing in explosives, one plainclothes TSA Supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshals every time she flies.

Keep reading

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues General Motors for Illegally Harvesting and Selling Drivers’ Private Data to Corporate Giants, Including Insurance Companies

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against General Motors (GM), alleging that the automotive giant engaged in deceptive and unlawful business practices by collecting and selling private driving data from over 1.5 million Texans without their knowledge or consent.

This lawsuit follows Paxton’s announcement in June 2024 that he had launched an investigation into several car manufacturers suspected of improperly harvesting vast amounts of data directly from vehicles.

The findings have been alarming, revealing a disturbing trend among companies leveraging invasive technologies to exploit unsuspecting consumers.

“Our investigation revealed that General Motors has engaged in egregious business practices that violated Texans’ privacy and broke the law. We will hold them accountable,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Companies are using invasive technology to violate the rights of our citizens in unthinkable ways.”

The crux of the lawsuit centers around GM’s use of technology installed in most vehicles manufactured since 2015. This technology allegedly collects, records, analyzes, and transmits detailed driving data every time a driver uses their vehicle, according to the press release.

Shockingly, GM sold this sensitive information to various third parties, including insurance companies, who used it to generate “Driving Scores” aimed at influencing insurance premiums.

“A customer’s Driving Score was based on a series of “factors” developed by General Motors that were supposedly indicative of “bad” driving behavior and included behavior such as (1) unique identifiers of a trip; (2) trip mileage; (3) hard braking and acceleration events; (4) speed events over 80 miles per hour; and (5) other behavior tracked by OnStar Vehicle Diagnostics (“OVD”). Under the Verisk Agreement, GM provided Verisk with the Driving Data necessary to determine whether a customer exhibited any “bad” driving behaviors,” according to the lawsuit.

This sensitive information includes location tracking, driving habits, personal communications within the vehicle’s system, customer ID, name, and home address.

Keep reading