A federal judge has slammed the brakes on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s latest attempt to police online humor, striking down two laws aimed at censoring so-called deepfakes, as Breitbart reports.
Newsom signed AB 2655 and AB 2839 after Elon Musk shared a parody campaign ad mocking Kamala Harris, then a Democratic Party presidential candidate. These laws sought to regulate deceptive online content and deepfakes tied to California elections, but critics saw them as a direct assault on free speech.
Musk’s spoof ad, a satirical jab at Harris, sparked Newsom’s push for AB 2655, which demanded that large online platforms block “materially deceptive content” during and after elections. “Materially deceptive content” was broadly defined as digitally altered audio or visual media, including deepfakes. The law’s vague wording raised alarms about stifling creative expression.
Senior Judge John Mendez, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that both laws violated fundamental free speech rights. “The Court finds that AB 2839 discriminates based on content, viewpoint, and speaker and targets constitutionally protected speech,” Mendez declared. His ruling exposes Newsom’s laws as a progressive overreach dressed up as election protection.
AB 2839 specifically targeted deepfakes depicting candidates for federal, state, or local office in California doing or saying things they didn’t, if it could harm their reputation or electoral chances. The law included exemptions for satire and parody but required a disclaimer. Mendez scoffed, noting that mandating a disclaimer for humor “would kill the joke.”
The Babylon Bee, a well-known satire outlet, challenged the laws in federal court after producing its own fake campaign video in response to Newsom’s crackdown. Their lawsuit argued that the laws chilled free expression under the guise of regulating misinformation. Mendez agreed, dismantling Newsom’s censorship scheme with surgical precision.
Judge Mendez also struck down AB 2655 for violating the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability for user content. By forcing platforms to police “deceptive” posts, the law undermined their immunity and invited government meddling in private speech. This ruling reaffirms that platforms aren’t Newsom’s personal content moderators.
Newsom’s defenders claimed AB 2839’s exceptions for satire and news reporting made it harmless. Mendez wasn’t buying it, warning that the law’s broad terms could still capture parody videos even if they didn’t fool anyone. His ruling calls out the state’s attempt to play “censorship czar” over creative content.
Musk, never one to shy from a fight, celebrated the ruling with characteristic flair. “Professor Suggon Deeznutz told me that parody is still legal in America,” he quipped. His jab underscores the absurdity of Newsom’s laws, which seemed more about silencing critics than protecting voters.
This isn’t Newsom’s first brush with constitutional trouble. He’s previously been slapped down for banning religious worship during the COVID-19 pandemic, a move courts also deemed unconstitutional. His track record suggests a pattern of prioritizing control over liberty.
The California Globe, RedState, and the Washington Times reported on Mendez’s ruling, highlighting its significance for free speech advocates. These outlets framed the decision as a victory against progressive efforts to regulate online discourse. Their coverage amplifies the growing pushback against California’s nanny-state tendencies.
AB 2839’s disclaimer requirement for satire and parody was particularly galling to free speech defenders. Mendez noted that it “attempts to stifle speech before it occurs or actually harms anyone.” This preemptive censorship reeks of a government itching to control narratives.
The judge’s ruling protects the Babylon Bee’s right to poke fun without fear of state retribution. By targeting satire, Newsom’s laws threatened to dull the edge of political humor, a vital tool for holding power to account. Mendez’s decision ensures that wit remains a weapon against overzealous governance.
Newsom’s laws were sold as a shield against election misinformation, but their real aim seemed to be muzzling dissent. The vague definition of “materially deceptive content” gave bureaucrats wide latitude to target speech they didn’t like. Mendez’s ruling exposes this as a power grab, plain and simple.
Free speech dodged a bullet in California, thanks to Judge Mendez’s defense of parody and satire. Newsom’s attempt to play content cop has been soundly rebuked, but his track record suggests he’ll try again. For now, the First Amendment stands tall, and humor lives to fight another day.
