In September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2839, which sought to ban the use of deepfake technology in campaign advertisements. However, just days later, federal Judge John A. Mendez put a stop to the bill, ruling that it could potentially violate constitutional rights, and issued a temporary injunction against its enforcement.

Judge Mendez pointed out that while the risks associated with artificial intelligence and deepfake technologies are evident, enacting a complete ban might infringe on First Amendment rights, thereby undermining the essence of free speech. He compared the regulations of AB 2839 to using a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel, indicating that they could suppress humorous expression and other constitutionally protected exchanges of ideas—elements that are essential to American democratic dialogue.

According to reports from the Associated Press, AB 2839 took effect immediately upon Newsom’s signature. Additionally, the governor approved two other bills aimed at regulating the use of deepfake technology, with the objective of curbing deceptive imagery and videos in political advertising as the 2024 elections approach. These measures are being regarded as some of the strictest in the nation.

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, defended the legislation, stating that its intention is to protect democracy and uphold free speech. She expressed confidence that the judiciary would ultimately back California’s initiatives to regulate harmful and misleading deepfake content, highlighting that political satire continues to thrive in California, even if it occasionally deviates from its original intent.

On the other hand, Theodore Frank, the attorney representing YouTuber Christopher Kohls in his challenge against the law, welcomed the straightforward ruling. He expressed appreciation for the district court’s decision, underscoring that technological advancements should not come at the expense of First Amendment principles.

The law has also ignited discussions among free speech advocates. Many urged Governor Newsom to veto the measure back in September, contending that it was unconstitutional and overreached government authority. David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, previously remarked that existing laws already define defamation, asserting that the government does not possess the power to impose additional restrictions on speech beyond the First Amendment’s protections.