In 1983, Hustler Magazine published a parody ad. It looked real enough. It showed Jerry Falwell looking serious with a headline that said: “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.”
The “ad” claimed that Falwell had sex with his mother. Maybe there were some people who took that seriously, but it was parody. Falwell was rightfully incensed and angry. He sued Hustler Magazine for emotional distress and monetary damages. Five years later, the matter had worked its way to the Supreme Court. The court noted that Falwell could be mad about a parody of his life that insulted him and his character, but the fake ad was obviously parody and therefore protected under the 1st Amendment.
“At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.” The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are “intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.” [Emphasis mine.]
The court noted that political commentary in the form of “artistic” expression (i.e., mocking political figures) was a cornerstone of the 1st Amendment.
Recently a video meme was created in which the objectively stupid, empty suit and empty-headed Kamala Harris was mocked using AI and a voiceover that sounded just like the Word Salad Queen. In it, the fake Kamala speaks (along with other things) of “the significance of significance.”
It’s funny, and obviously fake. It says “parody” at the bottom. It’s produced by a well-known maker of memes. Although anyone with a working frontal cortex and a pair of eyes and ears will understand that is parody, California Governor Gavin Newsom quickly morphed into Jerry Falwell and convinced his fellow Democrat cultists in the California legislature to pass two bills that are clear and unmistakable violations of the 1st Amendment. I knew that someone would step and sue the State.
Friday Funnies: Hilarious Parody Campaign Ad Beautifully Exposes Kamala’s Monumental Flaws
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute sued the state within hours of Governor Hair Gel signing the legislation. They argue:
Yesterday, September 17, Governor Newsom signed two bills, AB 2655 and AB 2839, and within hours, HLLI filed a lawsuit on behalf of ‘Mr. Reagan’ challenging the constitutionality of these newly enacted laws.
AB 2655, the ‘Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,’ requires social media companies to censor users’ protected political speech created with generative AI tools that spoof the likeness of political candidates. AB 2839, ‘Elections: Deceptive Media in Advertisements,’ applies not only to advertising but to all ‘election communication,’ including user-created parodies like “Mr. Reagan’s.”
AB2839 goes into effect immediately, makes dissemination of Mr. Reagan’s’ July 26 video, and dozens of others he has created, actionable.
AB 2655, slated to go into effect on January 1, 2025, also infringes on the First Amendment by requiring social media companies to censor user-created, AI-driven satire of political candidates. AB 2655 claims to allow parody and satire, but platforms are motivated to err on the side of removing such content because failure to do so subjects them to potential liability.
HLLI filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The name of the case is Kohls v. Bonta, and has not yet been assigned a docket number or judge.
This new suit is the third time that HLLI has sued the state of California over its blatant violations of the 1st Amendment. It prevailed in the previous two suits. In my opinion this is the most obvious (and intentional) contravention of the 1st Amendment. There is a mountain of precedence that should have informed California’s legislative and executive thugs that the State will not prevail. They don’t care. They know that they will lose, but it is an election year and they must “protect the precious”.
Will HLLI succeed? Unequivocally, in my opinion – Yes.
California is becoming more and more communist everyday. Their ignorance of the constitution shows that they don’t care one bit about taking away peoples rights. California has become what comes out of the south end of a north bound jackass. The government only cares about power and control. It’s no wander people and businesses are fleeing California in droves.