The US District Court for the Eastern District of California has issued a preliminary injunction, effectively blocking a recently enacted California law aimed at tackling the challenge of election-related deepfakes. This decision comes after the California Bill 2839 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 17. The legislation was designed to prohibit the distribution of “materially deceptive content” within 120 days prior to an election and, in certain circumstances, 60 days following one. It also would have enabled recipients of such content to seek damages from the content distributors.
Among the key voices against the statute was Christopher Kohls, who is also known by his online pseudonym Mr. Reagan. As a creator of political content utilizing deepfakes, Kohls argued that the law is unconstitutional, positing that counter-speech, such as political parody, should be considered a “least restrictive alternative” instead of an outright prohibition of speech. Supporting this stance, the court concluded that although the state aims to uphold a “free and fair election,” the law was not narrowly tailored enough to justify the restriction of speech as protected by the First Amendment.
In his ruling, District Judge John Mendez underscored that the First Amendment is specifically designed to guard against governmental encroachments on speech. Mendez remarked that courts would continually confront the complexities of interpreting First Amendment principles in the context of modern platforms such as social media, where civic engagement and election ads are increasingly present.
The California state government, conversely, had argued that deepfakes should be put in the category of defamatory content. The court, however, rejected this argument, asserting that the bill’s provisions exceeded the legal definition of defamation. Instead of restricting only defamation, the law sought to curb any “false or materially deceptive content” likely to damage reputations, without needing evidence of actual harm.
Judge Mendez further referenced the precedent set by the New York Times v Sullivan Supreme Court case, which reinforced that the First Amendment protects even deliberate falsehoods made with malice about the government. This safeguard, he noted, ensures that the public retains its right to critique the government and its officials rigorously.
Legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, David Loy, echoed this outlook. He has consistently argued that the government has no jurisdiction to establish a new category of speech exempted from First Amendment protection and maintained that the legal standards for defamation are robustly established under this amendment.
For further reading, visit the original coverage by JURIST.