California can’t censor parody, satire it doesn’t like

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Click here for more information about submitting an Op-Ed.

OPINION – As AI continues to rapidly change methods of communication, there are novel and difficult questions about what this new technology means for society. One area of concern is deepfake images or videos about political topics, leading many states to try to enact measures to regulate or prohibit potentially harmful content.

But California is taking too extreme of an approach. It recently enacted two laws that censor “materially deceptive content” about political candidates or elected officials, sweeping up constitutionally protected speech like parody and satire and making it illegal to poke fun at politicians.

That’s why I was in Sacramento on Aug. 5 defending in federal court one of our most fundamental freedoms—the right to speak and share your opinion, even if the government doesn’t like it. And on Aug. 29, the court ruled that California’s two laws are unconstitutional.

In July 2024, Christopher Kohls—a conservative content creator—posted a parody campaign ad for then-Vice President Kamala Harris. The video received millions of views after Elon Musk shared it on X. But Gov. Gavin Newsom said the video “should be illegal.”

Shortly thereafter, the state passed two bills to censor political commentary. The first bill prohibits “materially deceptive content” about certain subjects, including a candidate or elected official that is “reasonably likely to harm the … electoral prospects of a candidate” or to “undermine confidence” in an election. The second bill requires large online platforms to label or remove the same type of speech.

These laws target speech at the heart of the First Amendment by prohibiting the political cartoons of today—digitally created parody campaign ads and memes lampooning political candidates. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized many times, speech utilizing new forms of technology receives the same First Amendment protection as the spoken or written word.

California officials may not like criticism but that’s exactly what the First Amendment protects. Giving state officials this type of broad censorial power to parse truth from fiction based on vague standards is really the power to suppress speech that the government doesn’t like. But the Constitution gives citizens the right to hear and evaluate speech for themselves. And it doesn’t allow states to forcibly recruit social-media companies to do their dirty work for them by mandating censorship on platforms like Rumble or X.

My law firm, Alliance Defending Freedom, filed two lawsuits challenging these laws. We represent satirical website The Babylon Bee, California attorney and blogger Kelly Chang Rickert, and the video-sharing platform Rumble, who assert a First Amendment right to create content criticizing government officials and political-party candidates.

California’s law is a cautionary tale as nations around the world are grappling with totalitarian instincts and political censorship, including censorship here in the United States. Some western democracies in Europe have strayed so far from our fundamental freedoms that police are raiding homes and seizing cell phones of citizens posting racist or “hateful” cartoons. Germany is a leading example: It gives politicians special protections from critical remarks, giving them ammunition to file complaints against critics exercising their right to satirically criticize government officials.

Whether laws like California’s come from altruistic intentions or not, giving officials control over online political debate naturally devolves into oppressive tools for censorship. The government can’t be trusted to decide what is true or false in our political debates—or anywhere else.

Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse is legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal).