In a legal move that sheds light on the ugly crusade that so-called “Democrats” are engaging against freedom of choice (even as they push the canard that political “democracy” somehow equates to self-rule and freedom of choice), and which puts a contemporary, technological, spin, on spurious rationales for censorship, the Rumble corporation has brought suit against the state of California.
The fight is over two recently passed California statutes that step in the way of people posting online artificially created so-called “deep fakes,” regardless of whether anyone claims any harm to his person or property dealt through defamation or fraud.
This preemptive attack on individuation results in a broad proscription against new forms of speech, especially satire created with the help of contemporary technology.
Steve Watson reports for Modernity:
“Video streaming site Rumble has filed a lawsuit against the state of California in response to legislation forcing social media platforms to censor political speech.
Rumble is being represented by The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which filed suit against AB 2655, aka the ‘Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,’ in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
The legislation is Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s response to a deepfake satire video of Kamala Harris that was shared on X by Elon Musk among others.”
ADF also represents the satirical website “The Babylon Bee” in a related lawsuit, and there are key Common Law elements to these, as well as lessons about the US Constitution and the California Constitution.
“ADF stated in a press release that the law ‘deputizes’ Rumble to restrict its user’s free speech, while another law, AB 2839, ‘Protecting Democracy Against Election Disinformation and Deepfakes,’ uses vague standards to punish individuals posting political content about elections.
‘California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,’ said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler.”
The major facets of the suit are both evident and subtle.
First, the suit focuses on the position that these California statutes take in opposition to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. But, as I have noted for MRCTV, easy reference to the First Amendment reveals that this focus (which also will be the focus for the courts, despite the historical and constitutional realities indicating otherwise) is improper.
Related: Female CA School Athletes Sue For Speech, Shirts Saying "Save Girls' Sports"
Since the First Amendment only specifies Congress in its prohibition against restriction of speech, analysts properly should turn to the California Constitution, which states in Article One, Section Two:
“Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.”
And, by “abuse of this right,” the writers of the California Constitution mean defamation, slander, and fraud, all of which are supposed to be handled on individual, person-to-person levels if someone believes he or she has been injured by the statements of another. Common Law torts allow for a person to make a claim and present this case to a jury, not for politicians and bureaucrats a-priori to ban entire forms of speech.
Adds Watson:
“’Rumble is one of the few online voices stepping up against this trend of censorship while other platforms and sites cave to totalitarian regimes censoring Americans,’ Sechler further urged.
He added that ‘Rumble is standing for free speech even when it is hard. Other online platforms and media companies must see these laws for what they are — a threat to their existence.’”
Here at MRCTV, it is easy to attest to how well Rumble has opened up the opportunities for free speech. As viewers of our videos often hear us mention, Rumble does not censor us.
Wasn’t censorship something the “democrats” of the world decried?
“Chris Pavlovski, Chairman and CEO of Rumble, further urged that ‘The very thought of the government judging the content of political speech, and then deciding whether it should be permitted, censored, or eliminated altogether is about the most chilling thing you could imagine.’”
Well said.
Perhaps Gavin Newsom will try to censor that, as well…
And Pavlovski added:
“Rumble will always celebrate freedom and support creative independence, so we’re delighted to work with ADF to help protect lawful online expression…”
If Gavin Newsom and his censorious friends have problems with people creating AI-generated satires, each of those people can attempt to engage in traditional Common Law torts for damage to themselves or their property, such as a business.
But these purported lovers of political “democratization” -- who try to equate FREEDOM with what political democracy really is: a big gang telling the minority what to do – don’t like democratization in the form of freedom from government, in the form of larger individual control over one’s life. These pompous controllers are not liberty-minded; they are not liberal by any means.
Would Newsom or others try to ban talented impressionists, people mimicking politicians to inspire laughter? How similar is "too similar"? More appropriately, one might ask, "Has anyone claimed damages?" If so, let the individuals involved hash it out before a jury, don't get the government involved in threatening all of us, because that, itself, is immoral.
And if these blowhards in California want to claim that AI samples their voices to create the new phrasing, the satire, let them bring personal suit, and remember, they are public figures who willingly ask to get into tax-funded offices. They take from us, every day.
The chilling effect created by this pair of California statutes is remarkable, and Rumble’s fight is crucial, not only for our future, but to show respect for the past and for very important principles.
Follow MRCTV on X!
GEICO is forcing its employees to undergo “re-education” training on gender so they can properly use pronouns and avoid misgendering. https://t.co/hNkGCB4FTb
— MRCTV (@mrctv) November 28, 2024