Davin News Server

On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 09:17:06 -0400, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>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.

Once again Alan hangs his head in shame and runs away.