Judge John Mendez (E.D. Cal.) in Kohls v. Bonta stated:
Christopher Kohls, also known as “Mr. Reagan,” creates digital content about political figures. His videos contain false information with edited or AI-generated sounds or visuals. Kohls considers his videos to be parody or satire. In response to his videos parodying Kamala Harris and other deepfakes, California passed AB 2839, allowing lawsuits for damages and injunctive relief during election periods.
AB 2839 fails constitutional scrutiny as counter speech is a less restrictive alternative to prohibiting offensive or inappropriate videos. The court found that AB 2839 does not fall under the defamation exception to First Amendment protection and does not lower protection for false statements in election campaigns.
The court concluded that AB 2839 goes beyond defamation restrictions and penalizes digitally manipulated content that may harm a candidate’s reputation or electoral prospects. The statute does not require actual harm and broadly sanctions any content that is deemed deceptive. The subjective nature of the law implicates constitutionally protected speech and lacks objective metrics.
Defendants argued that AB 2839 falls under exceptions recognized in U.S. v. Alvarez, but the court disagreed, stating that the statute suppresses protected speech and does not address legally cognizable harms. Even deliberate lies about the government are protected under the First Amendment, as confirmed in New York Times v. Sullivan.
The fundamental principles that protect individuals’ rights to criticize the government and its officials remain crucial even in the modern digital era, where media can be manipulated. Civil penalties for government criticisms, such as those imposed by AB 2839, do not have a place in our system of governance.
The court assessed the statute as a restriction on content-based speech, subjecting it to strict scrutiny and determining that it likely failed this test. Strict scrutiny requires the state to use the least restrictive means available to advance its interests, and the First Amendment does not allow speech-restrictive measures when other laws can address the issue without infringing on speech.
While concerns about digitally altered media are valid, legislators cannot disregard the long-standing tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment. Platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter serve as modern mediums for expression, and individuals have the right to voice their opinions regardless of the form they take. Other legal avenues, such as privacy torts and defamation laws, already provide remedies for individuals whose reputations are harmed by manipulated content.
In addition to impeding protected speech, regulations like AB 2839 that aim to control political speech should be met with skepticism. Allowing the state to penalize alleged false speech in certain contexts poses a significant risk of suppressing truthful speech. The political arena, in particular, is not conducive to the government acting as the arbiter of truth.
The court found that AB 2839’s restrictions on election-related content, including satire and humor, were overly broad and unconstitutional. The requirement for disclaimers on parody or satire videos was also deemed unconstitutional as it compelled speech and hindered the message conveyance.
Adam Schulman and Ted Frank from the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute represented Kohls in this case. For further insights on the topic of satire, refer to the provided link.
Source link
