Democrat Governor is being blocked by a federal prosecutor. A social speech-killing law was hurriedly put into place by Gavin Newsom and his band of communist legislators as a way to stop the people from being exposed as “deepfakes.”
The decision, at least for then, is a major success for the First Amendment, which has been under continual assault from liberals like Newsom who insist they are “defending republic” by gutting rights in the name of stopping “disinformation”. California’s far-left solicitor common, Rob Bonta, is likely to appeal.  ,
After Newsom complained about a hilarious parody video satirizing Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris, the California legislature rushed to pass and implement the bill ( authored by state representative Gail Pellerin, D-Santa Cruz ). Produced by Christopher Kohls, who bills himself as” Mr. Reagan“, the campaign ad movie uses AI to make Harris, in many cases, say what she has been capable of saying as President Joe Biden’s vice president and on the campaign trail: the fact.  ,
” I’m running for president as a Democratic candidate because Joe Biden suddenly exposed his dementia during the conversation. Owing, Joe”, the “fake” Harris says in the picture.  ,
Elon Musk, a proponent of free speech, and X landlord, uploaded the movie in late July. Newsom went indignant, declaring that he would mark a expenses shutting down for satire. The Democrat signed several constitutionally questionable charges earlier this month that he claims will “protect people from the use of modern information.”
The provincial judge’s ban on online manipulated communications that are deemed to be false or misleading. People who views the content of such mailings or video ads that target or involve elected officials, candidates, election workers, or other voting equipment could be sued for damages.  ,
Officials are “protecting lawmakers,” according to the phrase.
U.S. District Senior Judge John Mendez wrote that the law is far too large to withstand legal attention when issuing the preliminary order.  ,
While California has a legitimate interest in safeguarding the dignity and reliability of the political process, the judge argued that AB 2839 is illegal because it lacks the least restrictive and narrow tailoring substitute that a content-based law requires under strict scrutiny.
The lawsuit is comparable to a complaint made earlier this week by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of The Babylon Bee, a well-known traditional humorous release. The California rules threaten the cherished history of American political movie and comedy, according to ADL CEO and chairman Kristen Waggoner, in the most recent release of The Federalist Radio Hour. 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 rules ‘ language has an Orwellian quality. They are based on arbitrary requirements, prohibiting pictures and videos “likely to injury” a president’s “electoral prospects”. Leftist politicians like Newsom have made it abundantly clear that they are willing to censor and silence free speech if it “dilutes” the Democrats ‘ chances of winning the White House and Congress.
As The Federalist’s Mark Hemingway wrote this year, Harris ‘ working partner, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, endorsed repression during Tuesday’s vice presidential debate. Here’s the telling trade between Walz and former President Donald Trump’s running partner, Ohio Sen. J. D. Vance. It bears repeating.  ,
J. D. Vance: The most sacred straight under the United States politics is the First Amendment. You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misconceptions. Kamala Harris wants to apply…
Tim Walz: …]inaudible ] threatening or love talk…
J. D. Vance: … the power of state and Big Tech to silence citizens from speaking their minds. That did much outlast politics and make sense of the present political climate. Republicans and Democrats should both accept repression, in my opinion. This inspire one another. This argue about ideas, and then let’s arrive up later.
Tim Walz: You ca n’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the exam. That’s the Supreme Court exam.
J. D. Vance: Tim. Flames in a crowded drama? You guys wanted to ban users from Facebook because they claimed young children should n’t wear masks.
The Biden administration has spearheaded a campaign to silence speech that it opposes, including creating the status of a “disinformation king.”
Lines Between Democracy and Tyrannies
As Courthouse News reported on Wednesday, the California law does n’t include any way to “measure the effects” of altered election-related content.  , In addtion, as Mendez explained,” Yet if AB 2839 were just targeted at knowing untruths that cause substantial hurt, these falsehoods as well as other bogus claims are exactly the types of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan that even purposeful lies about the state are” lawfully safeguarded” in the Constitution.
Waggoner claimed that Western governments are increasingly subject to government-sponsored repression.  ,
” When the government hears words like’ love talk,’ ‘ misinformation,’ or ‘ disinformation,’ that may soon 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 squander power from the people,” the statement read.
Matt Kittle covers The Federalist’s top elections coverage. An award-winning analytical writer and 30-year former of print, broadcast, and online media, Kittle formerly served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.