Parody ad for Kamala Harris
This is very funny. But how could anyone think it was anything but a parody?
Meanwhile, Newsom has signed a law to fight such ads. And that’s no joke:
California has enacted some of the nation’s strictest measures to combat the spread of deepfakes in elections ahead of the 2024 vote.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a series of bills at an AI conference in San Francisco.
New policies include a law targeting AI-generated fake political ads and materials that could mislead the electorate.
This law, which took effect immediately, allows individuals to sue for damages if they have been harmed by deepfake content.
It also empowers courts to order the removal of misleading AI-generated materials that misrepresent candidates, election processes, or even election workers. …
A lawsuit was filed in Sacramento by a political activist who had created parody videos featuring altered audio clips of Vice President Kamala Harris.
This individual, whose work has been shared by Elon Musk, claims the new laws infringe on First Amendment rights.
No laughing matter.
I’m ambivalent on this. It’s one thing for Michael Ramirez to put words into an obvious cartoon caricature of a politician. It’s another for AI video.
AI fakes are too good. A person tuning in for ten seconds could easily take the parody of Kamala Harris for the real thing*.
_______________________
*Usual disclaimers on whatever Harris’s real thing might be.
When Orson Welles’ famous (or infamous) “War of the Worlds” was broadcast, there was a disclaimer at the beginning that it was a work of fiction, but if a listener tuned in late, there was no way to tell if it was fiction, that the Martians hadn’t just invaded the East Coast.
I can’t blame those listeners for panicking.
I’d like to think we are more sophisticated these days, but geez, enough people are already falling for the Dem line that any Trump supporter is a no-foolin’ fascist hater, determined to put all minorities into camps and end democracy.
“This law, which took effect immediately, allows individuals to sue for damages if they have been harmed by deepfake content.”
This is a California statute, of the land of fruits and nuts and blathering left-wingers.
What “harm” by “deepfake content” could possibly result? This is a statute to increase incomes of CA lawyers via ‘settlements’, aka extortions.
I would favor a law that outlaws personal attacks on political opponents.
Dave Reichert (R0 is running against Bob Fergusson (D) for governor of Washington state. Ferguson has much more money than Dave does. He is flooding the TV with lies about Reichert.
https://mynorthwest.com/3988747/rantz-did-dave-reichert-really-say-teachers-are-overpaid-bob-ferguson-attack-ad-fact-checked/
Political ads should stick to what the politician that’s paying for the ad will do. No lying, guessing, or theorizing about what the other candidate might do. Let each candidate speak for themselves.
An abridgement of free speech? Yes, to the extent that lying in political ads would be outlawed. How do we stop the untrue personal destruction ads that are effective in misleading voters unless we have some rules about lying about the other candidate’s intentions and policies.? An honest media could help by exposing the lies, but we don’t have an honest media anymore.
It’s a hard problem to solve when politicians have no principles. The AI issue is even more likely to be manipulated to make false impressions of a candidate.
It’s high time we made some rules about what is acceptable in political campaigns. Otherwise, we get more Russia, Russai, Russia; Charlotteville, a dictator on day one, a bloodbath if Trump loses, etc.
Maybe the law could be changed to make such false claims and lies actionable in court. Sue them into oblivion for libel?
There ought to be a Law. Aren’t there enough already? Do I like the lies being spewed? No, but lies in politics in the US have been around since Washington.
To paraphrase – One person’s lies, are another person’s truth.
I looked at that ad, and while some Kamala “quotes” are AI, I think I recall one or two of them as being real.
J.J., what would help, rather than prohibiting attacks, is to revise American libel law to allow public figures to sue for false statements made about them.
So would it be OK by the CA law if the “voicing” of that clip was done by a live human imitator? Modern day imitators like Rich Little or maybe Mel Blanc? Is it just a problem with AI being used?
On the other hand, we hear endless statements about but what people will do once elected: “He will end the Constitution”, “He will outlaw all abortions”, “He will destroy the stock market”…. If these people know so much about the future, why don’t they win the lottery more often?
And so ends parody and satire, at least as far as they are used in the political sphere. Yet spreading lies about your political opponents continues to be just fine.