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.
Because when one tries to parody Democrats, it all to often seems like the real thing. Recall all the times that Babylon Bee would post a parody of our Democrat friends, only to get outrage from those oh-so-serious Democrats who thought it was NOT parody.
“I would favor a law that outlaws personal attacks on political opponents. ”
Absolutely not! Some politicians *should* be personally criticized. Long live the First Amendment (and all the others)!
Politics ain’t beanbag.
JJ at 3:12: (and augmenting Kate at 3:31)
perhaps you would find this Claremont booklet helpful: https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Defamation-Accountability-Claremont-Provocations/dp/B0BFWBYJ6R
Rethinking Libel, Defamation, and Press Accountability [2022]
by Carson Holloway
[go with the Kindle version; it could be half as long and be equally useful/valid]
“ …what would help is to revise American libel law to allow public figures to sue for false statements made about them.”
Not sure it would help—even if it ought to help—BUT dollars to donuts, before one ever sees a law like that getting passed you’ll see a law that “…allow[s Democrats] to sue for [TRUE] statements made about [Democrats]…”.
@J.J.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.
The laws and regulations we have are currently weaponized against us by the people who are in charge of implementing them. More laws and regulations will just be added to the mix. Dems will be allowed to lie with impunity, and the full force of law will be used against Republicans.
Until the people who implement our current system are replaced with people who act in good faith, more laws don’t do us any more good, just give them more weapons to use against us..
R2l, thanks for the recommendation.
Niketas C., when men become angels, we won’t need any laws. I’m not quite as cynical or skeptical as you, but your point is made. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Unfortunately, quite so.
But I’m still a believer in the “silent majority.” There are more decent people in this country than we realize because the MSM has drowned out their voices. I see them at the Trump rallies, and it gives me hope.
” How can anyone think it’s anything but a parody?”
Because the “Cackler” has pretty much said what is shown in the video.
If SNL needed to do a comedic skit about a politician, they could just bring in the “Cackler” and just let her speak; she would not need a script.
The comedic part would be that no one would have the faintest clue (including her) what she was talking about.
“Ukraine is a country in Europe………………….”
“The significance of time………………….”
And millions will vote for her; un F’n believable.
I definitely support this. Up front I am not a Constitutional absolutist.
Today I watched an interview by Eric Weinstein discussing Kamala Harris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDX5q30V_-E
He suggests perhaps her “silliness” is an act and she is actually reasonably bright (IQ around 130 at most; educated parents, etc.) [start at minute 5:30 and wait a few seconds, then listen for a couple of minutes – not long].
Neo, I know you already expressed reservations about under estimating Harris, but I don’t recall if you went so far as to suggest possible purposeful deceit as to her real nature? [not her content per se, such as the lies she might spout on purpose]
I listened (audio only) to about 5 minutes of her debate with Trump, near the end around 10:15pm, but in that short interval she did sound disturbingly cogent and competent, even if it was also debate prep regurgitation. A sharp contrast to the other videos being promoted by folks on the Right.
Up front I am not a Constitutional absolutist.
Who will write such laws? Who will implement these laws? Who will enforce them, and how will they enforce them?
The above questions are answered: The same politicians who requested them, who’ll write, implement and enforce them the way THEY want them enforced.
It’s utterly naive and idealistic to not be a constitutional absolutist, especially in today’s time.
“I would favor a law that outlaws personal [verbal] attacks on political opponents. ”
Why not extend this, and outlaw personal [verbal] attacks on all people? Otherwise you are giving special treatment to politicians.
Dax, the Claremont pamphlet I mentioned to JJ basically says the current libel laws allow special negative treatment of politicians [and other “public” figures] while normal folks still have some protections if they are essentially still private persons.
Which led me to just now wonder: does commenting on a blog post or other web based essay/ article, etc., convert you from a private to a public person for purposes of libel law? Is it more public than if we have across the kitchen table conversations with friends and relatives, of if Huxley converses with his companions over breakfast at his diner [a place of public business]?