Washington D.C. — The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI), a public interest law firm, is suing California officials on behalf of “Mr Reagan,” a YouTuber who creates political satire videos. On July 26, 2024, he posted “Kamala Harris Ad PARODY,” a video that attracted the attention of Elon Musk (who called it “amazing”) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who tweeted: “Manipulating a voice in an ‘ad’ like this one should be illegal. I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.”
Yesterday, September 17, Governor Newsom signed two bills, AB 2655 and AB 2839, and within hours, HLLI filed a lawsuit on behalf of ‘Mr Reagan’ challenging the constitutionality of these newly enacted laws.
AB 2655, the ‘Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,’ requires social media companies to censor users’ protected political speech created with generative AI tools that spoof the likeness of political candidates. AB 2839, ‘Elections: Deceptive Media in Advertisements,’ applies not only to advertising but to all ‘election communication,’ including user-created parodies like “Mr Reagan’s.”
HLLI and Mr Reagan contend that the bills violate core First Amendment rights to engage in political speech, which has always included parody—even during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, people wrote parodies of their opponent’s positions.
Mr Reagan’s video fits in this tradition. It includes an AI-generated narration in the voice of Kamala Harris saying things that lampoon her candidacy like “I was selected as the ultimate diversity hire… so if you criticize anything I say you’re both sexist and racist.”
Yet California’s AB 2839, which goes into effect immediately, makes dissemination of Mr Reagan’s’ July 26 video, and dozens of others he has created, actionable.
AB 2655, slated to go into effect on January 1, 2025, also infringes on the First Amendment by requiring social media companies to censor user-created, AI-driven satire of political candidates. AB 2655 claims to allow parody and satire, but platforms are motivated to err on the side of removing such content because failure to do so subjects them to potential liability.
HLLI’s lawsuit explains that both bills use vague language to grant California discretion to determine what constitutes impermissible “materially deceptive” content. This chills free speech, particularly for political commentators like Mr Reagan, who use satire to critique public figures and rely on social media viewership for their livelihood.
Mr Reagan’s satire videos, which have garnered millions of views, are precisely the kind of speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect. Encouraging platforms like X and YouTube to remove such content undermines the democratic processes it purports to safeguard.
HLLI Senior Attorney, Adam Schulman, stated, “AB 2655 and AB 2839 are California’s latest misguided attempt to protect established political interests from criticism by everyday citizens sharing memes online. HLLI is committed to defending the free speech rights of Mr Reagan and other content creators and consumers nationwide.”
The lawsuit seeks a judgment that both bills are unconstitutional and an injunction preventing their enforcement, so that Mr Reagan may continue to share his content without fear of censorship or legal retaliation. HLLI will move for a temporary restraining order later this week.
This is the third First Amendment lawsuit HLLI has brought against California in three years. California backed down from laws designed to punish free speech in HLLI’s two previous challenges.
HLLI filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The name of the case is Kohls v. Bonta, and has not yet been assigned a docket number or judge.
* * *
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute is a public interest law firm dedicated to battling the progressive left’s agenda by defending civil liberties, countering government overreach, and fighting class action abuse.
As a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, HLLI relies on support from individuals and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited government. To learn more, visit http://hlli.org.
For more information about this case, please see our complaint, our case webpage, or contact the attorney below:
Adam Schulman, Senior Attorney, (610) 457-0856, adam.schulman@hlli.org.