We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

A federal judge has blocked Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom and his band of leftist legislators from implementing a political speech-killing law hastily assembled under the guise of protecting the public from so-called “deepfakes.” 

The decision, at least for now, is a significant victory for the First Amendment, which has been under constant assault from leftists like Newsom who insist they are “defending democracy” by gutting liberties in the name of stopping “disinformation.” California’s far-left attorney general, Rob Bonta, is likely to appeal. 

The California legislature rushed to pass and implement the bill (authored by state Rep. Gail Pellerin, D-Santa Cruz) after Newsom took issue with a hilarious parody video satirizing Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Produced by Christopher Kohls, who bills himself as “Mr. Reagan,” the campaign ad parody uses AI to make Harris, in many cases, say what she has been incapable of saying as President Joe Biden’s vice president and on the campaign trail: the truth. 

“I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate. Thanks, Joe,” the “fake” Harris says in the video. 

Free speech warrior and X owner Elon Musk posted the parody in late July. Newsom went apoplectic, declaring that he would sign a bill shutting down such satire. Earlier this month, the Democrat signed constitutionally suspect bills he claims will “protect individuals from the misuse of digital content.” 

The law blocked by the federal judge bans digitally manipulated communications deemed to be misleading or false. Anyone who distributes such mailers or video ads targeting or involving an elected official, candidates, elections workers, or voting equipment could be sued for damages by anyone who views the content. 

‘Politicians Protecting Politicians’

In issuing the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Senior Judge John Mendez wrote that the law is much too broad to survive constitutional scrutiny. 

“While California has a valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process, AB 2839 is unconstitutional because it lacks the narrow tailoring and least restrictive alternative that a content based law requires under strict scrutiny,” the judge wrote.

The lawsuit is similar to a complaint filed earlier this week by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of The Babylon Bee, a popular conservative satirical publication. ADL CEO and president Kristen Waggoner told me on the latest edition of The Federalist Radio Hour that the California laws threaten the time-honored tradition of American political parody and satire. Ultimately, she said, it’s “politicians protecting politicians.” 

“Censorship threatens the heart of public discourse, and these particular laws are focused [on] the political process and political debate,” Waggoner said. 

The language of the laws strike an Orwellian tone. They are based on subjective standards, prohibiting pictures and videos “likely to harm” a candidate’s “electoral prospects.” Leftist politicians like Newsom have made clear they’re willing to chill and silence free speech if the speech “harms” the Democrats’ chances of holding the White House and Congress.

As The Federalist’s Mark Hemingway wrote this week, Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, endorsed censorship during Tuesday’s vice presidential debate. Here’s the telling exchange between Walz and former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance. It bears repeating. 

J.D. Vance: The most sacred right under the United States democracy is the First Amendment. You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use …

Tim Walz: … [inaudible] threatening or hate speech …

J.D. Vance: … the power of government and Big Tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment. I would like Democrats and Republicans to both reject censorship. Let’s persuade one another. Let’s argue about ideas, and then let’s come together afterwards.

Tim Walz: You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.

J.D. Vance: Tim. Fire in a crowded theater? You guys wanted to kick people off of Facebook for saying that toddlers should not wear masks.

The Biden administration has pushed a campaign to root out and silence speech it doesn’t like, including creating the position of a “disinformation czar.”

‘Lines Between Dictatorships and Democracies’

As Courthouse News reported on Wednesday, the California law doesn’t include any way to “measure the effects” of altered election-related content. In addtion, as Mendez explained, “Even if AB 2839 were only targeted at knowing falsehoods that cause tangible harm, these falsehoods as well as other false statements are precisely the types of speech protected by the First Amendment. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that even deliberate lies (said with ‘actual malice’) about the government are constitutionally protected.”

Waggoner said Alliance Defending Freedom is seeing mounting government-sponsored censorship across all Western democracies. 

“When the public hears words like ‘hate speech,’ ‘misinformation,’ or ‘disinformation,’ that should immediately signal a red flag that blurs the lines between dictatorships and democracies,” the free speech advocate said. “It’s really a power grab by government officials to take power from the people.”

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.