In a recent decision by the Eighth Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, joined by Judges James Loken and Duane Benton, the court ruled against a preliminary injunction in the case of Kohls v. Ellison. This case challenged a Minnesota election law that aimed to combat the spread of deepfake videos during election campaigns. While the court did not grant the preliminary injunction, the challenge to the law will continue.
The case was brought by Republican congressional candidate Lacy Johnson and his campaign manager, who argued that the Minnesota law violated their First Amendment rights by restricting their ability to use deepfake videos in their campaign. The law, which was passed in 2020, prohibits the dissemination of “materially deceptive audio or visual media” with the intent to influence an election. It also requires that any deepfake videos be labeled as such and includes penalties for those who violate the law.
In his opinion, Chief Judge Colloton acknowledged the potential harm that deepfake videos can cause in an election, stating that they “can deceive viewers into believing that a candidate said or did something that he or she did not.” However, he also noted that the law does not completely ban the use of deepfake videos, but rather regulates their dissemination. He further stated that the law does not target any specific viewpoint or political party, but rather applies to all candidates and campaigns equally.
The court also considered the potential impact on free speech and the public interest in allowing the use of deepfake videos in political campaigns. While acknowledging that the law does restrict some speech, the court found that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of its elections and preventing the spread of false information. The court also noted that the law does not prevent candidates from using other forms of communication to get their message across.
In his concurring opinion, Judge Loken emphasized the importance of protecting the integrity of elections, stating that “the public has a right to expect that the information disseminated during an election campaign is truthful and accurate.” He also noted that the law does not restrict political speech, but rather targets the use of deceptive tactics to influence an election.
While the court did not grant the preliminary injunction, the challenge to the law will continue. The plaintiffs will have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of their claim that the law is unconstitutional. The court’s decision does not mean that the law will ultimately be upheld, but rather that the plaintiffs have not met the high burden required for a preliminary injunction.
This decision by the Eighth Circuit is an important step in the ongoing battle against the spread of deepfake videos in elections. It sends a clear message that while free speech is a fundamental right, it does not give individuals the right to deceive or manipulate the public. The court’s decision also highlights the need for continued vigilance in protecting the integrity of our democratic process.
In the wake of the 2016 election, the issue of deepfake videos has become a growing concern. These videos, which use artificial intelligence to manipulate audio and video footage, have the potential to spread false information and undermine the public’s trust in our political system. While the Minnesota law may not be a perfect solution, it is a step in the right direction towards addressing this problem.
As the case moves forward, it is important to remember that the court’s decision does not mean that deepfake videos will be allowed in political campaigns. The law is still in effect and candidates and campaigns must comply with its provisions. This decision also does not prevent the plaintiffs from continuing to challenge the law and present their arguments in court.
In conclusion, the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Kohls v. Ellison is a positive development in the fight against deepfake videos in elections. While the court did not grant the preliminary injunction, the challenge to the law will continue and the issue will be thoroughly examined. This decision sends a strong message that the integrity of our elections must be protected and that deceptive tactics will not be tolerated.