Latest news with #AttorneyGeneralOffice
Washington Post
25-04-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Elon Musk's X sues to overturn Minnesota political deepfakes ban
MINNEAPOLIS — X Corp., the social media platform owned by Trump adviser Elon Musk, is challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota ban on using deepfakes to influence elections and harm candidates, saying it violates First Amendment speech protections. The company's federal lawsuit filed this week also contends that the 2023 state law is preempted by a 1996 federal statute that shields social media from being held responsible for material posted on their platforms. 'While the law's reference to banning 'deep fakes' might sound benign, in reality it would criminalize innocuous, election-related speech, including humor, and make social-media platforms criminally liable for censoring such speech,' the company said in a statement. 'Instead of defending democracy, this law would erode it.' Minnesota's law imposes criminal penalties — including jail time — for disseminating a deepfake video, image or audio if a person knows it's fake, or acts with reckless disregard to its authenticity, either within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after the start of early voting in a primary or general election. It says the intent must be to injure a candidate or influence an election result. And it defines deepfakes as material so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it's real, and generated by artificial intelligence or other technical means. 'Elon Musk funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2024 presidential election and tried to buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat,' said the law's author, Democratic state Sen. Erin Maye Quade . 'Of course he is upset that Minnesota law prevents him from spreading deepfakes that meant to harm candidates and influence elections. Minnesota's law is clear and precise, while this lawsuit is petty, misguided and a waste of the Attorney General Office's time and resources,' her statement said. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, which is legally obligated to defend the constitutionality of state laws in court, said in a statement that it's 'reviewing the lawsuit and will respond in the appropriate time and manner.' The Minnesota law was already the subject of a constitutional challenge by Christopher Kohls, a content creator, and GOP state Rep. Mary Franson, who likes to post AI-generated parodies of politicians. That case is on hold while they appeal to overturn a judge's denial of their request to suspend the law. The attorney general's office argues in that case that deepfakes are a real and growing threat to free elections and democratic institutions, that the law is a legitimate and constitutional response to the problem, and that it contains important limitations on its scope that protect satire and parody. X, formerly known as Twitter, said it's the only social media platform challenging the Minnesota law, and that it has also challenged other laws it considers infringements of free speech, such as a 2024 California political deepfakes law that a judge has blocked. X said in its statement that its 'Community Notes' feature allows users to flag content they consider problematic, and that it's been adopted by Facebook, YouTube and TikTok. The company's lawsuit said its 'Authenticity Policy' and 'Grok AI' tool provide additional safeguards. Alan Rozenshtein, a University of Minnesota law professor and expert on technology law, said in an interview Friday that it's important to separate the free-speech issues from whatever one thinks about the controversial Musk. 'I'm almost positive that this will be struck down,' Rozenshtein said. There's no exception under the First Amendment for false or misleading political speech, even lies, he said. And the potential for criminal penalties gives social media companies like X and Facebook 'an incentive to take down anything that might be a deepfake. ... You're going to censor a massive amount to comply with this law.' Deepfakes aren't good, but it would be nice to get evidence that they're causing actual problems before imposing such limits on free speech, the professor said. And while it's easy to focus on the supply of misinformation, the large demand for it is the problem. 'People want to be fooled, and it's very bad for our democracy, but it's not something I think can be solved with a deepfakes ban,' he said.
25-04-2025
- Business
Elon Musk's X sues to overturn Minnesota political deepfakes ban
MINNEAPOLIS -- X Corp., the social media platform owned by Trump adviser Elon Musk, is challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota ban on using deepfakes to influence elections and harm candidates, saying it violates First Amendment speech protections. The company's federal lawsuit filed this week also contends that the 2023 state law is preempted by a 1996 federal statute that shields social media from being held responsible for material posted on their platforms. 'While the law's reference to banning 'deep fakes' might sound benign, in reality it would criminalize innocuous, election-related speech, including humor, and make social-media platforms criminally liable for censoring such speech," the company said in a statement. 'Instead of defending democracy, this law would erode it.' Minnesota's law imposes criminal penalties — including jail time — for disseminating a deepfake video, image or audio if a person knows it's fake, or acts with reckless disregard to its authenticity, either within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after the start of early voting in a primary or general election. It says the intent must be to injure a candidate or influence an election result. And it defines deepfakes as material so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it's real, and generated by artificial intelligence or other technical means. 'Elon Musk funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2024 presidential election and tried to buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat," said the law's author, Democratic state Sen. Erin Maye Quade. "Of course he is upset that Minnesota law prevents him from spreading deepfakes that meant to harm candidates and influence elections. Minnesota's law is clear and precise, while this lawsuit is petty, misguided and a waste of the Attorney General Office's time and resources,' her statement said. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, which is legally obligated to defend the constitutionality of state laws in court, said in a statement that it's 'reviewing the lawsuit and will respond in the appropriate time and manner.' The Minnesota law was already the subject of a constitutional challenge by Christopher Kohls, a content creator, and GOP state Rep. Mary Franson, who likes to post AI-generated parodies of politicians. That case is on hold while they appeal to overturn a judge's denial of their request to suspend the law. The attorney general's office argues in that case that deepfakes are a real and growing threat to free elections and democratic institutions, that the law is a legitimate and constitutional response to the problem, and that it contains important limitations on its scope that protect satire and parody. X, formerly known as Twitter, said it's the only social media platform challenging the Minnesota law, and that it has also challenged other laws it considers infringements of free speech, such as a 2024 California political deepfakes law that a judge has blocked. X said in its statement that its 'Community Notes' feature allows users to flag content they consider problematic, and that it's been adopted by Facebook, YouTube and TikTok. The company's lawsuit said its 'Authenticity Policy' and 'Grok AI' tool provide additional safeguards. Alan Rozenshtein, a University of Minnesota law professor and expert on technology law, said in an interview Friday that it's important to separate the free-speech issues from whatever one thinks about the controversial Musk. 'I'm almost positive that this will be struck down,' Rozenshtein said. There's no exception under the First Amendment for false or misleading political speech, even lies, he said. And the potential for criminal penalties gives social media companies like X and Facebook 'an incentive to take down anything that might be a deepfake. ... You're going to censor a massive amount to comply with this law.' Deepfakes aren't good, but it would be nice to get evidence that they're causing actual problems before imposing such limits on free speech, the professor said. And while it's easy to focus on the supply of misinformation, the large demand for it is the problem. 'People want to be fooled, and it's very bad for our democracy, but it's not something I think can be solved with a deepfakes ban," he said.
Straits Times
24-04-2025
- Straits Times
Two from search group that uncovered Mexico's 'ranch of horror' killed
FILE PHOTO: Forensic technicians stand at a cordoned area during a media tour by Jalisco's Attorney General Office at Izaguirre Ranch, which activists have called a cartel-run \"extermination camp,\" in Teuchitlan, Jalisco state, Mexico March 20, 2025. REUTERS/Ivan Arias/File Photo Two from search group that uncovered Mexico's 'ranch of horror' killed MEXICO CITY - Gunmen on a motorcycle shot and killed two members of a civil search organization that discovered a now-infamous site known as Mexico's "ranch of horror," the group and authorities said on Thursday. The two victims, Carmen Morales and her son Jaime Ramirez, died after they were shot by two men on Wednesday night, the Jalisco state prosecutor's office said in a statement. The suspects have not been identified. Morales and Ramirez were members of the citizen search group Guerreros Buscadores, in the western state of Jalisco, which was instrumental in the discovery of what local media dubbed the "ranch of horror" in March. Searchers found hundreds of items of clothing and skeletal remains at the site in Teuchitlan, a rural area outside Guadalajara, the state capital. Officials have said the site was a cartel training camp. "Unfortunately, (Morales) had already been threatened several times. ... It's sad and painful that these things are happening. All we families want is to find our loved ones," said Raul Servin, a representative for the group. The Jalisco state prosecutor's office, however, ruled out a connection to the search group in its statement. Morales and Ramirez had been searching for a relative who disappeared in February 2024. Their deaths follow the killing of another member of the search group. Teresa Gonzalez, who had been searching for her missing brother, was killed earlier this month, according to the group. Members of search groups for missing family members often receive threats, which rights groups allege largely come from the criminal groups responsible for their disappearances. Jalisco is one of the states with the highest number of reported missing persons, according to official data. It is the home base of the powerful Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), which authorities have accused of forcibly recruiting young people. More than 124,000 people are missing in Mexico, according to government data. Most cases are never solved, breeding a deep mistrust of authorities among those searching for the missing. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
The Independent
16-04-2025
- The Independent
Triple killer's 49-year jail term referred to Court of Appeal
The 49-year jail term handed to triple murderer Nicholas Prosper will be reviewed by the Court of Appeal after shadow justice minister Kieran Mullan claimed it was unduly lenient. Prosper was jailed for life with the specified minimum term at Luton Crown Court in March, after admitting killing his mother Juliana Falcon, 48, and siblings Giselle Prosper, 13, and Kyle Prosper, 16, along with weapons charges. The violence-obsessed 19-year-old was also plotting a mass shooting at his former primary school in Luton, Bedfordshire, purely with the aim of gaining notoriety. Passing sentence, High Court judge Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb told Luton Crown Court that her duty to the public was met with the 49-year minimum term, rather than using 'the sentence of last resort' and jailing him for the rest of his life. Conservative shadow justice minister Dr Mullan referred the sentence to the Attorney General's Office under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme on the day Prosper was jailed. The scheme allows any member of the public to ask for certain crown court sentences to be reviewed, and if necessary the case will be referred to the Court of Appeal. On Wednesday, an Attorney General Office's spokesman confirmed the Solicitor General has referred Prosper's sentence to the Court of Appeal. 'It will be argued that Prosper ought to have been given a whole life order,' the spokesman said. 'It is now for the court to decide whether to increase the sentence.' Rules were changed in 2022 to allow younger defendants aged 18 to 20 to receive whole-life orders in exceptional circumstances, but none of the orders imposed since then have been on criminals in that age bracket. The judge said that for defendants over the age of 21, whole-life orders can be considered in cases involving two or more murders with a significant degree of premeditation or planning, or where one child is killed with similar pre-planning. Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said: 'The court may arrive at a whole-life order in the case of an 18 to 20-year-old only if it considers that the seriousness of the combination of offences is exceptionally high, even by the standard of offences which would normally result in a whole-life order. 'This is described accurately as an enhanced exceptionality requirement. 'Despite the gravity of your crimes, it is the explicit joint submission of counsel that a lengthy, finite term will be a sufficiently severe penalty, and this is not such an exceptionally serious case of the utmost gravity where the sentence of last resort must be imposed on an offender who was 18 at the time and is 19 today.' While Prosper was 'indisputably a very dangerous young man', the risk to the public was met with a life sentence, she said. Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb told the court she would not impose a whole-life order because Prosper was stopped from carrying out the school shooting, having murdered his family earlier than he intended after his mother woke up. He also pleaded guilty as soon as the charges were put to him after psychiatric reports had been completed, and he was 18 at the time of his crimes which is at the lowest end of the age bracket for whole-life terms. Dr Mullan said at the time: 'What exactly does someone have to do in this country to be sent away for life? This was the most serious of crimes – including the murder of two children. 'What is the point of making provision for whole-life orders if they aren't used in cases like this? It makes a mockery of the justice system and is an insult to the victims. 'This is the latest in a series of cases that demonstrate too often there is a gap between what the majority of law-abiding members of the public would see as justice and what the judicial system delivers. 'It was particularly galling to read the judge give to describe as mitigation for the murderer the fact that they didn't succeed in a plan to kill even more people. What kind of logic is that?'
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Yahoo
Triple killer's 49-year jail term referred to Court of Appeal
The 49-year jail term handed to triple murderer Nicholas Prosper will be reviewed by the Court of Appeal after shadow justice minister Kieran Mullan claimed it was unduly lenient. Prosper was jailed for life with the specified minimum term at Luton Crown Court in March, after admitting killing his mother Juliana Falcon, 48, and siblings Giselle Prosper, 13, and Kyle Prosper, 16, along with weapons charges. The violence-obsessed 19-year-old was also plotting a mass shooting at his former primary school in Luton, Bedfordshire, purely with the aim of gaining notoriety. Passing sentence, High Court judge Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb told Luton Crown Court that her duty to the public was met with the 49-year minimum term, rather than using 'the sentence of last resort' and jailing him for the rest of his life. Conservative shadow justice minister Dr Mullan referred the sentence to the Attorney General's Office under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme on the day Prosper was jailed. The scheme allows any member of the public to ask for certain crown court sentences to be reviewed, and if necessary the case will be referred to the Court of Appeal. On Wednesday, an Attorney General Office's spokesman confirmed the Solicitor General has referred Prosper's sentence to the Court of Appeal. 'It will be argued that Prosper ought to have been given a whole life order,' the spokesman said. 'It is now for the court to decide whether to increase the sentence.' Rules were changed in 2022 to allow younger defendants aged 18 to 20 to receive whole-life orders in exceptional circumstances, but none of the orders imposed since then have been on criminals in that age bracket. The judge said that for defendants over the age of 21, whole-life orders can be considered in cases involving two or more murders with a significant degree of premeditation or planning, or where one child is killed with similar pre-planning. Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said: 'The court may arrive at a whole-life order in the case of an 18 to 20-year-old only if it considers that the seriousness of the combination of offences is exceptionally high, even by the standard of offences which would normally result in a whole-life order. 'This is described accurately as an enhanced exceptionality requirement. 'Despite the gravity of your crimes, it is the explicit joint submission of counsel that a lengthy, finite term will be a sufficiently severe penalty, and this is not such an exceptionally serious case of the utmost gravity where the sentence of last resort must be imposed on an offender who was 18 at the time and is 19 today.' While Prosper was 'indisputably a very dangerous young man', the risk to the public was met with a life sentence, she said. Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb told the court she would not impose a whole-life order because Prosper was stopped from carrying out the school shooting, having murdered his family earlier than he intended after his mother woke up. He also pleaded guilty as soon as the charges were put to him after psychiatric reports had been completed, and he was 18 at the time of his crimes which is at the lowest end of the age bracket for whole-life terms. Dr Mullan said at the time: 'What exactly does someone have to do in this country to be sent away for life? This was the most serious of crimes – including the murder of two children. 'What is the point of making provision for whole-life orders if they aren't used in cases like this? It makes a mockery of the justice system and is an insult to the victims. 'This is the latest in a series of cases that demonstrate too often there is a gap between what the majority of law-abiding members of the public would see as justice and what the judicial system delivers. 'It was particularly galling to read the judge give to describe as mitigation for the murderer the fact that they didn't succeed in a plan to kill even more people. What kind of logic is that?'
