Sep
20
2024

Come and Get Me, Gavin

He's pretty steamed about this:

"What's that all about," you might ask, if you haven't been reading the news lately. Here's a story from Tristan Justice at the Federalist: With New California AI Law, Newsom Mounts Chilling Assault On Free Speech.

California’s far-left governor celebrated Constitution Day with a series of new laws to “crack down” on free speech articulated via artificially generated content.

On Tuesday, Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom officially outlawed the creation and distribution of images or videos created with artificial intelligence known as “deepfakes.” The meme ban applies 120 days before an election and 60 days after. The law formerly known as Assembly Bill 2839 allows people depicted in AI-generated memes and videos to obtain a preliminary injunction in court that stops the meme’s distribution.

They do love their crack-downs. On Constitution Day, no less! Gutsy move there, Gavin.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) issued a sobering statement on California's 'deceptive media' law. In its entirety:

In targeting “deceptive” political content, California’s new law threatens satire, parody, and other First Amendment-protected speech.

A.B. 2839 bans sharing “deceptive” digitally modified content about candidates for office for any purpose. That means sharing such content even to criticize it or point out it’s fake could violate the law.

The law also requires satire and parody to be labeled, like requiring a comedian to preface every joke with an announcement he’s making a joke. That’s not funny — it’s scary.

Whatever concerns exist about AI-generated expression, violating the First Amendment isn’t the way to address them.

In contrast, Democrat-apologists strain to put lipstick on this pig. For example, Polltico says the real problem isn't the free speech threats, but the "pouncing" by conservatives and those pesky libertarians: Creator of Kamala Harris parody video sues California over election ‘deepfake’ ban. A guy named "Izzy" says, hey, there's nothing to see here:

One of the laws in question, the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act, specifies that it does not apply to satire or parody content. It requires large online platforms to remove or label deceptive, digitally altered media during certain periods before or after an election.

Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement that Kohls had already labeled the post as a parody on X.

“Requiring them to use the word ‘parody’ on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform,” Gardon said. “It’s unclear why this conservative activist is suing California. This new disclosure law for election misinformation isn’t any more onerous than laws already passed in other states, including Alabama.”

"Of course, in Alabama, the Tuscaloosa."

(Sorry, that was a reflex action.)

Tom Wolfe once remarked that "dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe." I got a similar observation: we're continually told that Republicans are threats to democracy, yet the people who say we need to criminalize speech seem to be Democrats. Another case in point, as discussed by Jonathan Turley: “A Better Deterrence”: Hillary Clinton Calls for the Arrest of Americans Spreading Disinformation.

Hillary Clinton has long been one of the most anti-free speech figures in American politics, including calling upon European officials to force Elon Musk to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). She is now suggesting the arrest of Americans who spread what she considers disinformation. It is a crushingly ironic moment since it was her campaign that funded the infamous Steele dossier and spread false stories of Russian collusion during her presidential campaign. Presumably, that disinformation would not be treated as criminal viewpoints.

Speaking on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show this week, Clinton was asked about continued allegations of Russian efforts to disseminate Russian propaganda in the United States. Clinton responded:

“I think it’s important to indict the Russians, just as Muller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States.”

The interview was chillingly consistent with Clinton [sic] long antagonism toward free speech.

Well, if you notice Pun Salad going silent at some point in the future, you know one possible explanation.

Also of note:

  • Another possible explanation for Pun Salad going silent. That would be due to a small problem George F. Will points out: we are Unprepared for the rising, nightmarish risk of biological warfare. He discusses a recent, scary Foreign Affairs article “The New Bioweapons.”

    [The article authors] urge “hardening” societies: developing “warning systems” to detect engineered diseases. (The coronavirus might have been one.) And preparing to surge production of personal protective equipment, vaccines and antiviral drugs. The world must “develop the ability to vaccinate its eight billion people within 100 days of an outbreak — faster than it took the United States to fully vaccinate 100 million people against Covid-19.”

    John von Neumann — mathematician, physicist and participant in the Manhattan Project — said: “For progress, there is no cure.” There is only politics in the service of prudence. Remember this as you listen, so far in vain, for evidence, from either candidate to be the next commander in chief, of seriousness concerning national security.

    That might be a bigger worry than "disinformation", Gavin and Hillary.

  • Something to remember about Israel's critics. Jeffrey Blehar points it out: Israel’s Critics Will Only Be Satisfied If It Loses. He notes the selective outrage over Israel's rescue of four hostages back in June; there was collateral damage against the hostage takers! And now we have the exploding pagers and walkie-talkies, installing even more paranoia in terrorist-friendly communities.

    Which is why the complaints from the Left about it — offered in exactly the same tone and language as their outrage in June — ring so hollow. The empty spirit of this gripe is (predictably) perfectly epitomized by progressive mascot Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

    Israel’s pager attack in Lebanon detonated thousands of handheld devices across of a slew of public spaces, seriously injuring and killing innocent civilians. This attack clearly and unequivocally violates international humanitarian law and undermines US efforts to prevent a wider conflict. Congress needs a full accounting of the attack, including an answer from the State Department as to whether any US assistance went into the development or deployment of this technology.

    Spare me your cant, AOC. I’m tired of Israel being held to impossible standards of moral perfection, in exactly the same way I am contemptuous of seeing those same double standards applied to American actions abroad. When Israelis roll into Rafah in armored force, they are called irresponsible monsters for the resultant bloody door-to-door fighting amid a civilian population in which Hamas intentionally nests itself. When Israelis use guided missiles or drone warfare, they are accused of being war criminals. And now, when they come up with an attack so laser-focused on combatants as to target them literally in the crotch, they are still held accountable for any single incidental lost life, as if the consequences of choosing to become a high-ranking Hezbollah terrorist weren’t reasonably foreseeable. (Terrorists who hide among civilians risk those civilians’ lives. I recommend stricter work–life separation in the future.)

    Also, increased pager-groin separation is recommended.

  • Do Trump-style tariffs grow the economy? Veronique de Rugy has your answer, bunkie: No, Trump-Style Tariffs Do Not Grow the Economy. It's a detailed look at how tariff advocates confuse 19th-century correlation with causation.

    Trump is an avowed restrictionist on both immigration and trade. And so, if a second Trump presidency brings higher tariffs and further immigration restrictions, we won't be as fortunate as were our 19th century forebears.

    Making matters worse is that today's economy is vastly different from that of a century ago. Globalization has interconnected markets and supply chains in unprecedented ways. Half of what Americans import are inputs they use to produce goods domestically. Tariffs on these imports increase production costs, making American products less competitive both at home and abroad.

    Furthermore, the service sector—comprising industries like technology, finance, and health care—now represents nearly four-fifths of the U.S. economy. These sectors thrive on innovation, skilled labor, and access to global markets, rather than on protectionist policies.

    Reimagining tariffs as a panacea for economic woes is not only historically inaccurate but economically unsound. The America of the past grew in spite of tariffs, not because of them. If higher tariffs are imposed today, history will not look kindly on those who imposed them.

    Another reason why I won't be too sad if he loses.