Davin News Server

On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 11:17:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2025-09-04 10:44, NoBody wrote:
>> A federal judge has struck down a California law signed by Gov. Gavin
>> Newsom that prohibits the creation of deepfake images and videos of
>> politicians after conservative Christian satire site Babylon Bee and
>> others sued.
>> 
>> In a decision released Friday, U.S. District Judge John Mendez of the
>> Eastern District of California ruled that the Assembly Bill 2839,
>> which bans most deepfakes of political figures, "discriminates based
>> on content, viewpoint, and speaker and targets constitutionally
>> protected speech."
>> 
>> "Rather than targeting content that procures tangible harms or
>> materially benefits a speaker, AB 2839 attempts to stifle speech
>> before it occurs or actually harms anyone as long as it is 'reasonably
>> likely' to do so and it allows almost anyone to act as a censorship
>> czar," wrote Mendez, a George W. Bush appointee.
>> 
>> "The far-reaching prior restraints AB 2839 implements have not been
>> recognized by First Amendment caselaw thus far and have no
>> historically accepted analogs."
>> 
>> California could have tailored the law to "false speech that causes
>> legally cognizable harms like false speech that actually causes voter
>> interference, coercion, or intimidation," Mendez added.
>> 
>> "California could also limit the statute's reach to factual statements
>> that are demonstrably false like the time, date, place, or manner of
>> voting," he continued.
>> 
>> The Babylon Bee and other plaintiffs were represented by the Alliance
>> Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has won First
>> Amendment cases at the Supreme Court level.
>> 
>> "Making fun of politicians and criticizing the government is a core
>> First Amendment right. That includes using new technology to create
>> parody campaign ads or satirical memes," ADF Senior Counsel Johannes
>> Widmalm-Delphonse, who argued the case before the court, said in a
>> statement.
>> 
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-sides-with-babylon-bee-strikes-down-newsom-s-anti-deepfake-law/ar-AA1LEvJQ
>
>It seems to me the ruling is good, although I'm not familiar with the case.
>
>Of course, my guess would be that you're not either.
>
>Tell me, are you familiar with another recent ruling by a federal judge:
>
>'A federal court in California ruled Tuesday that the Trump 
>administration violated federal law when it deployed members of the 
>National Guard and active-duty U.S. Marines to Los Angeles earlier this 
>summer in response to protests against immigration enforcement operations.'
>
><https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-rules-trumps-deployment-of-troops-to-los-angeles-violated-federal-law/ar-AA1LIzO6>

I am.  Are you familiar with the fact that a superior court has paused
that ruling?


"NEW YORK, Sept 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday paused
a lower court ruling that restricted President Donald Trump's use of
troops to support federal law enforcement and immigration raids in Los
Angeles, preserving the status quo while the Trump administration
appeals.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled on Tuesday that the
Trump administration willfully violated a 19th-century law that limits
the use of the military for domestic enforcement by employing troops
to control crowds and bolster federal agents during immigration and
drug raids in Los Angeles and its surrounding area. Breyer restricted
troops from doing police work in California."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-pauses-restrictions-trumps-use-troops-los-angeles-2025-09-04/

But of course you feel the need to change the topic as you always do.

>
>'In a 52-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that the 
>president and his administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a 
>1878 law that prohibits the use of the military for domestic law 
>enforcement. Breyer blocked the Trump administration from deploying or 
>using the National Guard currently deployed in California, and any 
>military troops in the state, for civilian law enforcement.'
>
>What do you think of that ruling, hmmm?

That it will likely be overturned on appeal as the most recent ruling
is implying.

Duh...

Now get back to the topic of the thread.