Latest news with #XCorp.
San Francisco Chronicle
13-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Biden slogan costs San Ramon $120,000
The city of San Ramon has paid $120,000 to settle a suit by an activist who was criminally prosecuted in 2021 after projecting the words Build Back Better, President Joe Biden's label for his proposed economic and environmental legislation, onto the wall of City Hall. Alan Marling of Livermore was held by San Ramon police after refusing their order to take down his message. After a brief detention, he was charged with creating a public nuisance by posting a sign on city property and with obstruction of a public right-of-way. Superior Court Commissioner Jill Lifter acquitted him of both charges after a non-jury trial, saying his message was not a sign and did not block the sidewalk. Marling's civil suit accused San Ramon of violating his constitutional rights by illegally arresting him and threatening to confiscate his light projector. The city did not concede any violations in the settlement but has paid him $120,000, which includes his legal expenses in the case, attorney Donald Wagda said Monday. His actions 'did not break any law then in effect, and he never should have been criminally prosecuted for his speech,' Wagda said. For a short time on an evening in November 2021, before being halted by police, he shined #BuildBackBetter on the front wall of City Hall, above a stream of the legislation's goals: 'Affordable care, child meds, paid leave, green energy.' Marling said he wasn't trying to send a message to the city of San Ramon, which was not involved in the federal legislation, but only to use the wall, widely visible from the street, to urge the public to support Biden's plan. The settlement is 'as much of an apology as I'm going to get for infringing my freedom of speech, hopefully discouraging them from taking similar actions in the future,' he said. San Ramon City Attorney Martin Lyons said the city disagreed with Commissioner Lifter's ruling that Marling committed no violations but has reworded its ordinances to make them clearer. San Ramon agreed to the settlement after considering the costs of litigation and "the best interests of the City and its constituents," Lyons said. Build Back Better was a legislative package that included increases in health care programs for the poor and elderly, COVID-19 treatment, roads and bridges, and climate-related measures such as funding for electric vehicles and tax credits for clean energy production. Parts of it were approved by Congress, including COVID and electric-vehicle provisions, while others were blocked by Republicans and conservative Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Marling's other projections have included a flashing of 'lawless oligarch' onto the San Francisco headquarters of Elon Musk's X Corp., which Musk has since moved to Texas.
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.
San Francisco Chronicle
25-04-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Elon Musk's X sues to overturn Minnesota political deepfakes ban
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — 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.
Winnipeg Free Press
25-04-2025
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Elon Musk's X sues to overturn Minnesota political deepfakes ban
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — 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. During Elections Get campaign news, insight, analysis and commentary delivered to your inbox during Canada's 2025 election. 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.
