In the days before widespread Internet use, it was much easier for gatekeepers such as television broadcasters, newspapers and book publishers to exert gatekeeping control over the flow of mass communication and the dissemination of information.
However, from about the mid-90’s on, and especially with the introduction of faster, more reliable broadband in the 21st century, average people everywhere gained the ability to have a platform for their opinions, and an ability to easily communicate and share info.
This changed primarily with the 2016 election cycle and the standing of a populist candidate in the form of Donald Trump. The election of Donald Trump shocked the controllers of big tech communication platforms into more overt actions, and justifications for censoring content.
This past week the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed a bill that will make it illegal to post or share political parodies, whether images, memes or videos.
Touted as a measure to combat AI generated “deep fake” content that could fool voters, critics say the bill gives authorities the power to crush political speech, including satires, parodies and pointed commentary.
Controversy over the bill was entered on a parody video of a Kamala Harris campaign commercial.
While convincing in portraying the candidate’s voice, and edited in the style of current political commercials, there was nothing about the content that fell outside the bounds of long protected rights to engage in satire and parody. Yet it’s exactly the kind of content that could be construed as violating the new California law.
Elon Musk, owner of X, the largest existent platform in the world committed to substantially upholding free speech (well for some if not everyone), lambasted the new law. He encouraged X users to share the Harris parody commercial, and warned that the California law would make such content illegal. Newsom responded with a threat to take legal action against Musk.
Mainstream media predictably came to the defence of government censors, contending Musk was misrepresenting the new law, CA Assembly Bill 2355. Although Musk is hardly the only one pointing out that Harris, her VP choice Tim Walz, many other Democrats, plus many in the mainstream media are openly calling for unprecedented limits of free speech rights.
They are gearing up AI to serve the purpose of suppressing free speech.
The fact is, it’s entirely likely that the California law, if it stands, or is adopted on a national level, would represent a new level of government censorship that would chill free speech.
VP candidate Tim Walz’s assertion in a tv interview was;
There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech...
Robert F. Kennedy Jr addressed this issue posting on X;
Yes there is, Tim. It is called the U.S. Constitution. That is exactly what prevents the government from stifling dissent by labelling something “hate speech” or “misinformation.”
Yes, I understand, some forms of speech are repugnant, such as expressions of racial bigotry. Problem is, the category of hate speech expands to include everything the censors “hate.” As for misinformation, who decides what is true and what is false? The government? In authoritarian countries, yes, the government. That is why freedom of speech lies at the very heart of democracy
Under the guise of tackling deep fakes utilising AI, they would need to be labelled and there would need to be committees to create “qualified political advertisement”. A commission would be able to enforce these disclosure rules around AI involvement.
Under these circumstances it is easy to see how ordinary people will be restricted in their ability to use AI for political parody etc. Under this bill people would necessarily lose their anonymity which in a time of authoritarianism is fundamental.
In other words the labelling and registration requirements of the California law essentially creates a political registry and tracking mechanism for political expression, where AI creation tools are involved.
