Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Deepfake Laws vs.v Free Speech: The Constitutional Crisis 🧠Tech Takedown
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Deepfake Laws vs.v Free Speech: The Constitutional Crisis 🧠Tech Takedown
The First Amendment is protecting AI deepfakes. ⚖️🤖 We investigate the high-stakes legal battle between Safety and Liberty. California tried to ban political deepfakes to protect elections, but a federal judge blocked the law, ruling that even AI-generated lies can be protected speech.
1. The "Mr. Reagan" Case: We break down the landmark lawsuit. YouTuber Christopher Kohls (aka "Mr. Reagan") posted an AI-cloned parody of Kamala Harris calling herself the "ultimate diversity hire." California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law (AB 2839) specifically to ban this kind of content, but Kohls sued and won. The court ruled that the law was a "blunt instrument" that unconstitutionally banned satire along with fraud.
2. The "Liar's Veto": Why is lying legal? We explore the Supreme Court precedent (US v. Alvarez) that established you have a constitutional right to lie, as long as it isn't fraud or defamation. We discuss the danger of the "Liar's Veto," where giving the government the power to decide what is "materially deceptive" could allow them to silence political critics under the guise of fighting misinformation.
3. The Regulation Panic: It’s not just California. We analyze the chaotic sprint of legislation—from the federal NO FAKES Act to the DEFIANCE Act—trying to outlaw non-consensual digital clones. But experts warn that these rushed laws are colliding with the First Amendment, creating a legal minefield where protecting truth might mean sacrificing freedom of speech.
View all episodes
By MorgrainThe First Amendment is protecting AI deepfakes. ⚖️🤖 We investigate the high-stakes legal battle between Safety and Liberty. California tried to ban political deepfakes to protect elections, but a federal judge blocked the law, ruling that even AI-generated lies can be protected speech.
1. The "Mr. Reagan" Case: We break down the landmark lawsuit. YouTuber Christopher Kohls (aka "Mr. Reagan") posted an AI-cloned parody of Kamala Harris calling herself the "ultimate diversity hire." California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law (AB 2839) specifically to ban this kind of content, but Kohls sued and won. The court ruled that the law was a "blunt instrument" that unconstitutionally banned satire along with fraud.
2. The "Liar's Veto": Why is lying legal? We explore the Supreme Court precedent (US v. Alvarez) that established you have a constitutional right to lie, as long as it isn't fraud or defamation. We discuss the danger of the "Liar's Veto," where giving the government the power to decide what is "materially deceptive" could allow them to silence political critics under the guise of fighting misinformation.
3. The Regulation Panic: It’s not just California. We analyze the chaotic sprint of legislation—from the federal NO FAKES Act to the DEFIANCE Act—trying to outlaw non-consensual digital clones. But experts warn that these rushed laws are colliding with the First Amendment, creating a legal minefield where protecting truth might mean sacrificing freedom of speech.